ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluation of liquefaction potential in central Taiwan using random forest method.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-enhanced soil classification with incomplete CPT data for offshore wind farm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liquefaction is a significant geotechnical hazard in seismically active regions like Taiwan, threatening infrastructure and public safety. Accurate prediction models are essential for assessing soil susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic events. This study evaluates liquefaction potential in central Taiwan using the random forest (RF) method. The RF models were developed with a dataset of 540 soil and seismic parameter sets, including depth, effective and total overburden stresses, SPT-N values, fine soil content, earthquake magnitude, peak ground acceleration, and historical liquefaction occurrences. Rigorous validation techniques, such as cross-validation and comparisons with observed liquefaction events, confirm the RF model's effectiveness, achieving an accuracy of 98.89%. The model also quantifies predictor importance, revealing that the SPT-N value is the most critical soil factor, while peak ground acceleration is the key seismic factor for liquefaction prediction. Notably, the RF model outperforms simplified procedures in accuracy, even with fewer input factors. Our case studies show that an accuracy of over 95% can still be achieved, highlighting the RF model's superior performance compared to conventional methods, which struggle to reach similar levels.
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.