ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Robust Deep-Learning Model for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: A Case Study of Kurdistan Province, Iran.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- An explainable GeoAI framework for spatial assessment of wildfire susceptibility in the Upper Ravi sub-basin, Indian Himalaya.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Remote sensing-based landslide prediction and risk assessment using a hybrid CNN-LSTM deep learning model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Landslide Susceptibility Mapping Using Machine Learning Algorithm Validated by Persistent Scatterer In-SAR Technique.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We mapped landslide susceptibility in Kamyaran city of Kurdistan Province, Iran, using a robust deep-learning (DP) model based on a combination of extreme learning machine (ELM), deep belief network (DBN), back propagation (BP), and genetic algorithm (GA). A total of 118 landslide locations were recorded and divided in the training and testing datasets. We selected 25 conditioning factors, and of these, we specified the most important ones by an information gain ratio (IGR) technique. We assessed the performance of the DP model using statistical measures including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, F1-measure, and area under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Three benchmark algorithms, i.e., support vector machine (SVM), REPTree, and NBTree, were used to check the applicability of the proposed model. The results by IGR concluded that of the 25 conditioning factors, only 16 factors were important for our modeling procedure, and of these, distance to road, road density, lithology and land use were the four most significant factors. Results based on the testing dataset revealed that the DP model had the highest accuracy (0.926) of the compared algorithms, followed by NBTree (0.917), REPTree (0.903), and SVM (0.894). The landslide susceptibility maps prepared from the DP model with AUC = 0.870 performed the best. We consider the DP model a suitable tool for landslide susceptibility mapping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.