ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2024
An interpretable deep learning model to map land subsidence hazard.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2024. 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.
- Advances in Deep Learning Models for Ground Deformation Prediction Using InSAR Approach: A Systematic Review with Special Emphasis on Subsidence as a Geo-Environmental Hazard.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Interpretable multi-center machine learning model driven by facial image features for non-invasive early risk assessment of lung cancer.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Projecting the effect of climate change on multiple Geomorphological hazard using machine learning data driven approaches.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main goal of this research is the interpretability of deep learning (DL) model output (e.g., CNN and LSTM) used to map land susceptibility to subsidence hazard by means of different techniques. For this purpose, an inventory map of land subsidence (LS) is prepared based on fieldwork and a record of LS presence points, and 16 features controlling LS were mapped. Thereafter, 11 effective features controlling LS were identified by means of a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm, which was then used as input in the CNN and LSTM predictive models. To address the inherent black box nature of DL models, six interpretation methods (feature interaction, permutation importance plot (PFIM), bar plot, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) main plot, heatmap plot, and waterfall plot) were used to interpret the predictive model outputs. Both models (CNN and LSTM) had AUC > 90 and therefore provided excellent accuracy for mapping LS hazard. According to the most accurate model-the CNN predictive model-the range from very low to very high hazard classes occupied 20%, 20%, 25%, 16.3%, and 18.7% of the study area, respectively. According to three plots (bar plot, SHAP main plot, and heatmap plot), which were constructed based on the SHAP value, distance from the well, GDR and DEM were identified as the three most important features with the highest impact on the DL model output. The results of the waterfall plot indicate two effective features consisting of distance from the well and coarse fragment, and two effective features comprising landuse and DEM, contributed negatively and positively to LS, respectively. Overall, these explanation techniques can address critical concerns with respect to the interpretability of sophisticated DL predictive models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38340298What 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.