ArticleEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2024
Trusted artificial intelligence for environmental assessments: An explainable high-precision model with multi-source big data.
Article in Environmental science and ecotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deploying artificial intelligence for occupational and environmental health in waste management: a systematic review.International journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- Leveraging AI and integrated genomic-enviromic prediction for intelligent sugarcane breeding.Plant communications · 2026Review
- An online interpretable machine learning model for predicting cardiometabolic multimorbidity risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bridging computational power and environmental challenges: a perspective on neural network predictive models for environmental engineering.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental assessments are critical for ensuring the sustainable development of human civilization. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in these assessments has shown great promise, yet the "black box" nature of AI models often undermines trust due to the lack of transparency in their decision-making processes, even when these models demonstrate high accuracy. To address this challenge, we evaluated the performance of a transformer model against other AI approaches, utilizing extensive multivariate and spatiotemporal environmental datasets encompassing both natural and anthropogenic indicators. We further explored the application of saliency maps as a novel explainability tool in multi-source AI-driven environmental assessments, enabling the identification of individual indicators' contributions to the model's predictions. We find that the transformer model outperforms others, achieving an accuracy of about 98% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.891. Regionally, the environmental assessment values are predominantly classified as level II or III in the central and southwestern study areas, level IV in the northern region, and level V in the western region. Through explainability analysis, we identify that water hardness, total dissolved solids, and arsenic concentrations are the most influential indicators in the model. Our AI-driven environmental assessment model is accurate and explainable, offering actionable insights for targeted environmental management. Furthermore, this study advances the application of AI in environmental science by presenting a robust, explainable model that bridges the gap between machine learning and environmental governance, enhancing both understanding and trust in AI-assisted environmental assessments.
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.