Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36820245›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

MaxEnt brings comparable results when the input data are being completed; Model parameterization of four species distribution models.

Mohsen Ahmadi, Mahmoud-Reza Hemami, Mohammad Kaboli, Farzin Shabani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Predicting the Potential Distribution ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Distribution and Habitat Suitability ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ecological niche and rickettsial risk mapping ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Mohsen AhmadiDepartment of Natural Resources Isfahan University of Technology Isfahan Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9657-699X
Mahmoud-Reza HemamiDepartment of Natural Resources Isfahan University of Technology Isfahan Iran.
Mohammad KaboliDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources University of Tehran Karaj Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9203-2346
Farzin ShabaniDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University Doha Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species distribution models (SDMs) are practical tools to assess the habitat suitability of species with numerous applications in environmental management and conservation planning. The manipulation of the input data to deal with their spatial bias is one of the advantageous methods to enhance the performance of SDMs. However, the development of a model parameterization approach covering different SDMs to achieve well-performing models has rarely been implemented. We integrated input data manipulation and model tuning for four commonly-used SDMs: generalized linear model (GLM), gradient boosted model (GBM), random forest (RF), and maximum entropy (MaxEnt), and compared their predictive performance to model geographically imbalanced-biased data of a rare species complex of mountain vipers. Models were tuned up based on a range of model-specific parameters considering two background selection methods: random and background weighting schemes. The performance of the fine-tuned models was assessed based on recently identified localities of the species. The results indicated that although the fine-tuned version of all models shows great performance in predicting training data (AUC > 0.9 and TSS > 0.5), they produce different results in classifying out-of-bag data. The GBM and RF with higher sensitivity of training data showed more different performances. The GLM, despite having high predictive performance for test data, showed lower specificity. It was only the MaxEnt model that showed high predictive performance and comparable results for identifying test data in both random and background weighting procedures. Our results highlight that while GBM and RF are prone to overfitting training data and GLM over-predict nonsampled areas MaxEnt is capable of producing results that are both predictable (extrapolative) and complex (interpolative). We discuss the assumptions of each model and conclude that MaxEnt could be considered as a practical method to cope with imbalanced-biased data in species distribution modeling approaches.

Indexed as

habitat suitabilityMaxEntmodel tuningspatially imbalanced‐biased

Identifiers

PMID36820245
PMCPMC9937880

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.