Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545526›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022

Predicting ecological footprint based on global macro indicators in G-20 countries using machine learning approaches.

Ahmad Roumiani, Abbas Mofidi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ahmad RoumianiDepartment of Geography, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, 91735, Iran. roumiani.ah@mail.um.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2818-9277
Abbas MofidiDepartment of Geography, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, 91735, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paying attention to human activities in terms of land grazing infrastructure, crops, forest products, and carbon impact, the so-called ecological impact (EF) is one of the most important economic issues in the world. For the present study, global database data were used. The ability of the penalized regression (RR) approaches (including Ridge, Lasso and Elastic Net) and artificial neural network (ANN) to predict EF indices in the G-20 countries over the past two decades (1999-2018) was illustrated and compared. For this purpose, 10-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate the predictive performance and determine the penalty parameter for PR models. According to the results, the predictive performance compared to linear regression improved somewhat using the penalized methods. Using the elastic net model, more global macro indices were selected than Lasso. Although Lasso selected only a few indicators, it had better predictive performance among PR ns models. In addition to relative improvement in the predictive performance of PR methods, their interest in selecting a subset of indicators by shrinking coefficients and creating a parsimonious model was evident and significant. As a result, PR methods would be preferred, using variable selection and interpretive considerations to predictive performance alone. On the other hand, ANN models with higher determination coefficients (R

Indexed as

Anthropogenic EffectsMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerDatabases, FactualLinear ModelsEcological footprintG-20 countriesMachine learningPredictionVariable selection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.