ArticlePloS one2022
Utilization of social media in floods assessment using data mining techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compound flood simulations indicate rising public exposure to sewage-contaminated waters in Waikīkī, Hawai'i.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning model optimization for flood susceptibility zonation over the Kosi megafan, Himalayan foreland basin, India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A spatio-temporal graph wavelet neural network (ST-GWNN) for association mining in timely social media data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Flood-Related Multimedia Benchmark Evaluation: Challenges, Results and a Novel GNN Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Floods are among the devastating types of disasters in terms of human life, social and financial losses. Authoritative data from flood gauges are scarce in arid regions because of the specific type of dry climate that dysfunctions these measuring devices. Hence, social media data could be a useful tool in this case, where a wealth of information is available online. This study investigates the reliability of flood related data quality collected from social media, particularly for an arid region where the usage of flow gauges is limited. The data (text, images and videos) of social media, related to a flood event, was analyzed using the Machine Learning approach. For this reason, digital data (758 images and 1413 video frames) was converted into numeric values through ResNet50 model using the VGG-16 architecture. Numeric data of images, videos and text was further classified using different Machine Learning algorithms. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) methods were used to evaluate and compare the performance of the developed machine learning algorithms. This novel approach of studying the quality of social media data could be a reliable alternative in the absence of real-time flow gauges data. A flash flood that occurred in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from March 7-11, 2016 was selected as the focus of this study. Random forest showed the highest accuracy of 80.18% among the five other classifiers for images and videos. Precipitation/rainfall data were used to validate social media data, which showed a significant relationship between rainfall and the number of posts. The validity of the machine learning models was assessed using the area under the curve, precision-recall curve, root mean square error, and kappa statistics to confirm the validity and accuracy of the model. The data quality of YouTube videos was found to have the highest accuracy followed by Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and Instagram. These results showed that social media data could be used when gauge data is unavailable.
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.