ArticleScientific reports2023
Real-time correction of channel-bed roughness and water level in river network hydrodynamic modeling for accurate forecasting.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using ARIMA and ETS models for forecasting water level changes for sustainable environmental management.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accuracy and reliability of hydrodynamic models are sensitive to both hydraulic state variables and model parameters, particularly the bed roughness, while their simultaneous real-time corrections and corresponding effects still need to be well-established and understood. This paper presents a real-time data assimilation model that corrects channel-bed roughness and water level in a river network hydrodynamic model, ensuring its accuracy and reliability. Experiments and parameter analysis evaluated the effect of initial roughness and observation noise level on model performance. Correcting both roughness and water level improved filtering time and forecasting accuracy by up to 63% and 80%, respectively, compared to methods only correcting water level. The filtering time was reduced by 44-63%, and the water level forecasting RMSE decreased by up to 80%. Both models experienced increased filtering time and forecasting error as observation noise increased, but the proposed model had a lower increase. With accurate hydraulic state measurement (e.g., 0.005 m error), the model achieved negligible water level forecasting error after 7 h of data assimilation. The model's accuracy depended on the initial channel-bed roughness, and the algorithm enables real-time roughness correction, making it useful for flood forecasting.
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.