ArticleScientific reports2024
Enhancement of groundwater resources quality prediction by machine learning models on the basis of an improved DRASTIC 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seasonal water quality index prediction in Guilin karst water system: an explainable machine learning approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of machine learning models for detecting water quality anomalies in treatment plants.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating factors affecting the quality of water resources by multivariate analysis and soft computing approaches.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining situation of groundwater vulnerability plays a crucial role in studying the groundwater resource management. Generally, the preparation of reliable groundwater vulnerability maps provides targeted and practical scientific measures for the protection and management of groundwater resources. In this study, in order to evaluate the groundwater vulnerability of Kerman-Baghin plain aquifer, two developed indicators including composite DRASTIC index (CD) and nitrate vulnerability index (NVI) based on DRASTIC index were considered. Soft computing methods, including Gene Expression Programming (GEP), Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS), and M5 Model Tree (MTM5) have been used to provide formulations for prediction of NVI. Soft computing techniques were fed nine input parameters: depth to water level, net recharge, aquifer environment, soil environment, topography, effect of unsaturated area, hydraulic conductivity, land use, and potential risk related to land use. After calculating the vulnerability by soft computing methods, the results showed that the EPR model with Correlation Coefficient (R) of 0.9999 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 0.2105 has the best performance in the testing stage in comparison with MARS (R = 0.9966 and RMSE = 2.408), M5MT (R = 0.9956 and RMSE = 2.988), and GEP (R = 0.9920 and RMSE = 3.491). Although the EPR and GEP models have more complex mathematical computations than other soft computing models, the MARS and MT model that have quadratic polynomial and multivariable linear structures respectively, can be considered as the best alternative. According to the MARS model, the vulnerability of the region is divided into two categories: very low vulnerability (73.06%) and low vulnerability (26.94%). Overall, the statistical results of soft computing techniques were indicative of effective formulations for evaluating the DRASTIC index.
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.