ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Predicting ecological footprint based on global macro indicators in G-20 countries using machine learning approaches.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Forecasting the ecological footprint of G20 countries in the next 30 years.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
34545526What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.