ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Prediction of Dichloroethene Concentration in the Groundwater of a Contaminated Site Using XGBoost and LSTM.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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.
- Water-Quality Assessment and Pollution-Risk Early-Warning System Based on Web Crawler Technology and LSTM.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (CAHs) are widely used in agriculture and industries and have become one of the most common groundwater contaminations. With the excellent performance of the deep learning method in predicting, LSTM and XGBoost were used to forecast dichloroethene (DCE) concentrations in a pesticide-contaminated site undergoing natural attenuation. The input variables included BTEX, vinyl chloride (VC), and five water quality indicators. In this study, the predictive performances of long short-term memory (LSTM) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) were compared, and the influences of variables on models' performances were evaluated. The results indicated XGBoost was more likely to capture DCE variation and was robust in high values, while the LSTM model presented better accuracy for all wells. The well with higher DCE concentrations would lower the model's accuracy, and its influence was more evident in XGBoost than LSTM. The explanation of the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) value of each variable indicated high consistency with the rules of biodegradation in the real environment. LSTM and XGBoost could predict DCE concentrations through only using water quality variables, and LSTM performed better than XGBoost.
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.