Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014084›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

AI-driven predictions of geophysical river flows with vegetation.

Sanjit Kumar, Mayank Agarwal, Vishal Deshpande, James R Cooper, Khabat Khosravi, Namal Rathnayake, Yukinobu Hoshino, Komali Kantamaneni, Upaka Rathnayake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Sanjit KumarIndian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, India.
Mayank AgarwalIndian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, India.
Vishal DeshpandeIndian Institute of Technology Patna, Patna, India. deshpande@iitp.ac.in.
James R CooperUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Khabat KhosraviFlorida International University, Miami, USA.
Namal RathnayakeUniversity of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukinobu HoshinoKochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.
Komali KantamaneniUnited Nations-SPIDER-UK Regional Support Office, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Upaka RathnayakeAtlantic Technological University, Sligo, Ireland. upaka.rathnayake@atu.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7341-9078

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22KK0160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In river research, forecasting flow velocity accurately in vegetated channels is a significant challenge. The forecasting performance of various independent and hybrid machine learning (ML) models are thus quantified for the first time in this work. Utilizing flow velocity measurements in both natural and laboratory flume experiments, we assess the efficacy of four distinct standalone machine learning techniques-Kstar, M5P, reduced error pruning tree (REPT) and random forest (RF) models. In addition, we also test for eight types of hybrid ML algorithms trained with an Additive Regression (AR) and Bagging (BA) (AR-Kstar, AR-M5P, AR-REPT, AR-RF, BA-Kstar, BA-M5P, BA-REPT and BA-RF). Findings from a comparison of their predictive capabilities, along with a sensitivity analysis of the influencing factors, indicated: (1) Vegetation height emerged as the most sensitive parameter for determining the flow velocity; (2) all ML models displayed outperforming empirical equations; (3) nearly all ML algorithms worked optimal when the model was built using all of the input parameters. Overall, the findings showed that hybrid ML algorithms outperform regular ML algorithms and empirical equations at forecasting flow velocity. AR-M5P (R

Indexed as

Alluvial channelEmpirical equationsFlow velocityMachine learning modelsVegetation

Identifiers

PMID39014084
PMCPMC11252141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.