ArticlePloS one2024
Yield prediction for crops by gradient-based algorithms.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twelve tips for using educational data mining and machine learning to predict performance in high-stakes health professions education exams.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
- Transformer model to determine spatio-temporal relationships of variables, and interpretability for soybean seed yield, oil, and protein prediction.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Integrating UAV-Derived Diameter Estimations and Machine Learning for Precision Cabbage Yield Mapping.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system based multicrop yield prediction in the semi arid region of India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- UAV multispectral sensing and data-driven modeling for precision onion yield prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A timely and consistent assessment of crop yield will assist the farmers in improving their income, minimizing losses, and deriving strategic plans in agricultural commodities to adopt import-export policies. Crop yield predictions are one of the various challenges faced in the agriculture sector and play a significant role in planning and decision-making. Machine learning algorithms provided enough belief and proved their ability to predict crop yield. The selection of the most suitable crop is influenced by various environmental factors such as temperature, soil fertility, water availability, quality, and seasonal variations, as well as economic considerations such as stock availability, preservation capabilities, market demand, purchasing power, and crop prices. The paper outlines a framework used to evaluate the performance of various machine-learning algorithms for forecasting crop yields. The models were based on a range of prime parameters including pesticides, rainfall and average temperature. The Results of three machine learning algorithms, Categorical Boosting (CatBoost), Light Gradient-Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) are compared and found more accurate than other algorithms in predicting crop yields. The RMSE and R2 values were calculated to compare the predicted and observed rice yields, resulting in the following values: CatBoost with 800 (0.24), LightGBM with 737 (0.33), and XGBoost with 744 (0.31). Among these three machine learning algorithms, CatBoost demonstrated the highest precision in predicting yields, achieving an accuracy rate of 99.123%.
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.