Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702456›Full record

ReviewNature communications2024

Challenges in data-driven geospatial modeling for environmental research and practice.

Diana Koldasbayeva, Polina Tregubova, Mikhail Gasanov, Alexey Zaytsev, Anna Petrovskaia, Evgeny Burnaev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Developing an Index to Measure Structural Racism: Methodological Process, Challenges, and Considerations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Environmental justice-challenges for spatial analysis and monitoring].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Synergistic use of satellite, legacy, andFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
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

6 authors.

Diana Koldasbayeva *Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia. diana.koldasbayeva@skoltech.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-6024
Polina Tregubova *Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail Gasanov *Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2938-3140
Alexey ZaytsevSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia.
Anna PetrovskaiaSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia.
Evgeny BurnaevSkolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning-based geospatial applications offer unique opportunities for environmental monitoring due to domains and scales adaptability and computational efficiency. However, the specificity of environmental data introduces biases in straightforward implementations. We identify a streamlined pipeline to enhance model accuracy, addressing issues like imbalanced data, spatial autocorrelation, prediction errors, and the nuances of model generalization and uncertainty estimation. We examine tools and techniques for overcoming these obstacles and provide insights into future geospatial AI developments. A big picture of the field is completed from advances in data processing in general, including the demands of industry-related solutions relevant to outcomes of applied sciences.

Identifiers

PMID39702456
PMCPMC11659326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.