ArticleScientific reports2024
An integrated approach of support vector machine (SVM) and weight of evidence (WOE) techniques to map groundwater potential and assess water quality.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Groundwater quality assessment for agricultural utilizing indexical and machine learning techniques in Ouled Djellal Aquifer, Southern Algeria.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prediction model of water inrush risk level of coal seam floor based on KPCA-DBO-SVM.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study addresses the critical need for effective groundwater (GW) management in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, amidst challenges posed by rapid urbanization and population growth. By integrating Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Weight of Evidence (WOE) techniques, this study aimed to delineate GW potential zones and assess water quality. This study fills the gap in applying advanced machine learning and geostatistical methods for accurate GW potential mapping. Eight thematic layers based on topography, hydrology, geology, and ecology were utilized to compute the GW potential model. Additionally, water quality analysis was performed on collected samples. The findings indicate that flat and gently sloping terrains, areas with an elevation range of 611 -687 m, and concave slope geometries are associated with higher GW potential. Additionally, proximity to drainage and high-density lineament zones contribute to increased GW potential. The results showed that 31.1% of the area had excellent GW potential according to the WOE model, whereas the SVM model indicated that only 20.3% fell in the excellent potential zone. Results showed that both models performed well in the delineating GW potential zones. Nevertheless, the application of the SVM method is highly recommended which will be benefited in GW resources management related to urban planning. The study also evaluates the spatial distribution of GW quality, with a focus on physical and chemical parameters, including electrical conductivity, pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, calcium, magnesium, chloride, nitrate, and sulphate. Bacterial contamination assessment reveals that 76% of spring water samples (30 out of 39 samples) are contaminated with E.coli, raising public health concerns. Based on the chemical analysis of GW samples the study identified exceedances of WHO guidelines for calcium in two samples, magnesium in seven samples, sulphate in ten samples, and nitrate levels were below the WHO guideline across all samples. These results highlight localized chemical contamination issues that require targeted remediation efforts to safeguard water quality for public health.
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.