ArticlePloS one2023
Study on landslide susceptibility mapping with different factor screening methods and random forest models.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- GIS-based landslide susceptibility zonation using weighted overlay analysis with AHP: a case study of Malappuram district, Kerala, India.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Spatial variation in socio-economic vulnerability to Influenza-like Infection for the US population.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Effects of non-landslide sampling strategies on machine learning models in landslide susceptibility mapping.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of input factors affects the prediction accuracy of a model. Factor screening plays an important role as the starting point for data input. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of different factor screening methods on the prediction results. Taking the 2014 landslide inventory of Jingdong County as an example, a landslide database was constructed based on 136 landslide events and 11 selected factors, which were randomly divided into a training dataset and a test dataset according to a ratio of 7:3. Four factor screening methods, namely, the information gain ratio (IGR), GeoDetector, Pearson correlation coefficient and multicollinearity test (MT), were selected to screen the factors. A random forest (RF) model was then used in combination with each factor set for landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM). Finally, accuracy validation was performed using confusion matrices and ROC curves. The results show that factor screening is beneficial in improving the accuracy of the resulting model compared to the original model. Second, the IGR_RF model had the highest AUC value (0.9334), which was higher than that of the MT_RF model without factor screening (0.9194), and the IGR_RF model predicted the most landslides in the very high susceptibility zone (51.22%), indicating the good prediction performance of the IGR_RF model. Finally, the factor weighting analysis revealed that NDVI, elevation and aspect had the greatest influence on landslides in Jingdong County and that curvature had the least influence on landslides. This study can provide a reference for factor screening in LSM.
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.