Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37456046›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Exploring machine learning algorithms for accurate water level forecasting in Muda river, Malaysia.

Muhamad Nur Adli Zakaria, Ali Najah Ahmed, Marlinda Abdul Malek, Ahmed H Birima, Md Munir Hayet Khan, Mohsen Sherif, Ahmed Elshafie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Muhamad Nur Adli ZakariaDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia.
Ali Najah AhmedDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia.
Marlinda Abdul MalekCataclysmic Management and Sustainable Development Research Group (CAMSDE), Department of Civil Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia.
Ahmed H BirimaDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Unaizah, Saudi Arabia.
Md Munir Hayet KhanFaculty of Engineering & Quantity Surveying, INTI International University (INTI-IU), Persiaran Perdana BBN, Putra Nilai, Nilai, 71800, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
Mohsen SherifCivil and Environmental Eng. Dept., College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, 15551, United Arab Emirates.
Ahmed ElshafieDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya (UM), 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate water level prediction for both lake and river is essential for flood warning and freshwater resource management. In this study, three machine learning algorithms: multi-layer perceptron neural network (MLP-NN), long short-term memory neural network (LSTM) and extreme gradient boosting XGBoost were applied to develop water level forecasting models in Muda River, Malaysia. The models were developed using limited amount of daily water level and meteorological data from 2016 to 2018. Different input scenarios were tested to investigate the performance of the models. The results of the evaluation showed that the MLP model outperformed both the LSTM and the XGBoost models in predicting water levels, with an overall accuracy score of 0.871 compared to 0.865 for LSTM and 0.831 for XGBoost. No noticeable improvement has been achieved after incorporating meteorological data into the models. Even though the lowest reported performance was reported by the XGBoost, it is the faster of the three algorithms due to its advanced parallel processing capabilities and distributed computing architecture. In terms of different time horizons, the LSTM model was found to be more accurate than the MLP and XGBoost model when predicting 7 days ahead, demonstrating its superiority in capturing long-term dependencies. Therefore, it can be concluded that each ML model has its own merits and weaknesses, and the performance of different ML models differs on each case because these models depends largely on the quantity and quality of data available for the model training.

Indexed as

LSTMMachine learningMalaysiaMLPMuda riverWater levelXGBoost

Identifiers

PMID37456046
PMCPMC10344711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.