Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669966›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Performance of machine learning models to forecast PM10 levels.

Lakindu Mampitiya, Namal Rathnayake, Yukinobu Hoshino, Upaka Rathnayake

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lakindu MampitiyaWater Resources Management and Soft Computing Research Laboratory, Millennium City, Athurugiriya 10150, Sri Lanka.
Namal RathnayakeDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 1 Chome-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo City, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan.
Yukinobu HoshinoSchool of Systems Engineering, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada, Kami, Kochi 782-8502, Japan.
Upaka RathnayakeDepartment of Civil Engineering and Construction, Faculty of Engineering and Design, Atlantic Technological University, Sligo F91 YW50, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning techniques have garnered considerable attention in modern technologies due to their promising outcomes across various domains. This paper presents the comprehensive methodology of an optimized and efficient forecasting approach for Particulate Matter 10, specifically tailored to predefined locations. The execution of a comparative analysis involving eight models enables the identification of the most suitable model that aligns with the primary research objective. Notably, the test results underscore the superior performance of an ensemble model, which integrates state-of-the-art methodologies, surpassing the performance of the other seven state-of-the-art models. Adopting a case-specific methodology with machine learning techniques contributes to achieving a notably high regression coefficient (R²≈1) across all models. Furthermore, the study underscores the potential for future endeavors in predicting location-specific environmental factors.•This study focused on forecasting PM10 with machine learning models with the consideration of air quality factors and meteorological factors•Ensemble model was developed for the forecasting purposes with higher performance.

Indexed as

Air qualityEnsemble modelEnsemble Model, XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM, LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, ANNForecastingPerformancePM10 concentrationprediction

Identifiers

PMID39669966
PMCPMC11636873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.