ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparative study on landslide susceptibility mapping based on unbalanced sample ratio.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Principled XAI analysis of the deep learning-based landslide susceptibility prediction model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Rainfall-conditioned landslide susceptibility mapping in data-scarce regions using an interpretable deep convolutional neural network: a case study of the Jebel Marra volcanic massif, Sudan.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of landslide susceptibility based on SMOTE-Tomek sampling and machine learning algorithm.PloS one · 2025Article
- Research on the influence of different sampling resolution and spatial resolution in sampling strategy on landslide susceptibility mapping results.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The Zigui-Badong section of the Three Gorges Reservoir area is used as the research area in this study to research the impact of unbalanced sample sets on Landslide Susceptibility Mapping (LSM) and determine the sample ratio interval with the best performance for different models. We employ 12 LSM factors, five training sample sets with different sample ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16), and C5.0, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Logistic Regression (LR), and one-dimensional Convolution Neural Network (CNN) models are used to obtain landslide susceptibility index and landslide susceptibility zoning in the study area, respectively. The prediction performance of the model is evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve area under the curve value, five statistical methods, and specific category precision. The results show that the CNN, SVM, and LR models in the sample ratio of 1:2 achieve better performance than on the balanced sample set, which indicates the importance of the unbalanced sample set in training the LSM modeling. The C5.0 model is always in a state of overfitting in this study and needs to be further studied. The conclusions put forward in this study help improve the scientificity and reliability of LSM.
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.