ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparative Analysis of Selected Geostatistical Methods for Bottom Surface Modeling.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial variability of soil properties in Kiltie watershed, Upper Blue Nile Basin, Northwestern, Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Shear Wave Velocity Determination of a Complex Field Site Using Improved Nondestructive SASW Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital bottom models are commonly used in many fields of human activity, such as navigation, harbor and offshore technologies, or environmental studies. In many cases, they are the basis for further analysis. They are prepared based on bathymetric measurements, which in many cases have the form of large datasets. Therefore, various interpolation methods are used for calculating these models. In this paper, we present the analysis in which we compared selected methods for bottom surface modeling with a particular focus on geostatistical methods. The aim was to compare five variants of Kriging and three deterministic methods. The research was performed with real data acquired with the use of an autonomous surface vehicle. The collected bathymetric data were reduced (from about 5 million points to about 500 points) and analyzed. A ranking approach was proposed to perform a complex and comprehensive analysis integrating typically used error statistics-mean absolute error, standard deviation and root mean square error. This approach allowed the inclusion of various views on methods of assessment while integrating various metrics and factors. The results show that geostatistical methods perform very well. The best results were achieved with the modifications of classical Kriging methods, which are disjunctive Kriging and empirical Bayesian Kriging. For these two methods, good statistics were calculated compared to other methods (for example, the mean absolute error for disjunctive Kriging was 0.23 m, while for universal Kriging and simple Kriging, it was 0.26 m and 0.25 m, respectively). However, it is worth mentioning that interpolation based on radial basis function in some cases is comparable to Kriging in its performance. The proposed ranking approach was proven to be useful and can be utilized in the future for choosing and comparing DBMs, mostly in mapping and analyzing seabed changes, for example in dredging operations. The research will be used during the implementation of the new multidimensional and multitemporal coastal zone monitoring system using autonomous, unmanned floating platforms. The prototype of this system is at the design stage and is expected to be implemented.
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.