Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36501806›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Application of Transformer Models to Landslide Susceptibility Mapping.

Shuai Bao, Jiping Liu, Liang Wang, Xizhi Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shuai BaoSchool of Geomatics, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin 123000, China.
Jiping LiuChinese Academy of Surveying and Mapping, Beijing 100036, China.
Liang WangChinese Academy of Surveying and Mapping, Beijing 100036, China.
Xizhi ZhaoChinese Academy of Surveying and Mapping, Beijing 100036, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5519-934X

Funding

Liang Wang 2019YFC1509401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is of great significance for the identification and prevention of geological hazards. LSM is based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs); CNNs use fixed convolutional kernels, focus more on local information and do not retain spatial information. This is a property of the CNN itself, resulting in low accuracy of LSM. Based on the above problems, we use Vision Transformer (ViT) and its derivative model Swin Transformer (Swin) to conduct LSM for the selected study area. Machine learning and a CNN model are used for comparison. Fourier transform amplitude, feature similarity and other indicators were used to compare and analyze the difference in the results. The results show that the Swin model has the best accuracy, F1-score and AUC. The results of LSM are combined with landslide points, faults and other data analysis; the ViT model results are the most consistent with the actual situation, showing the strongest generalization ability. In this paper, we believe that the advantages of ViT and its derived models in global feature extraction ensure that ViT is more accurate than CNN and machine learning in predicting landslide probability in the study area.

Indexed as

Electric Power SuppliesNeural Networks, ComputerAlgorithmsData AnalysisMachine Learningdata-drivenfeature extractionlandslide susceptibility mappingVision Transformer

Identifiers

PMID36501806
PMCPMC9735583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.