ArticlePloS one2022
Machine learning-based estimation of riverine nutrient concentrations and associated uncertainties caused by sampling frequencies.
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 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.
- Explainable deep learning identifies patterns and drivers of freshwater harmful algal blooms.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2025Article
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
Accurate and sufficient water quality data is essential for watershed management and sustainability. Machine learning models have shown great potentials for estimating water quality with the development of online sensors. However, accurate estimation is challenging because of uncertainties related to models used and data input. In this study, random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and back-propagation neural network (BPNN) models are developed with three sampling frequency datasets (i.e., 4-hourly, daily, and weekly) and five conventional indicators (i.e., water temperature (WT), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and turbidity (TUR)) as surrogates to individually estimate riverine total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), and ammonia nitrogen (NH4+-N) in a small-scale coastal watershed. The results show that the RF model outperforms the SVM and BPNN machine learning models in terms of estimative performance, which explains much of the variation in TP (79 ± 1.3%), TN (84 ± 0.9%), and NH4+-N (75 ± 1.3%), when using the 4-hourly sampling frequency dataset. The higher sampling frequency would help the RF obtain a significantly better performance for the three nutrient estimation measures (4-hourly > daily > weekly) for R2 and NSE values. WT, EC, and TUR were the three key input indicators for nutrient estimations in RF. Our study highlights the importance of high-frequency data as input to machine learning model development. The RF model is shown to be viable for riverine nutrient estimation in small-scale watersheds of important local water security.
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.