ArticlePloS one2025
Enhancing PM2.5 prediction by mitigating annual data drift using wrapped loss and neural networks.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- A lightweight hybrid deep learning approach for fashion mnist classification with explainable attention visualization.PloS one · 2026Article
- A novel deep learning prediction method for PM2.5 integrating improved MSTL decomposition and FATA optimization algorithm.PloS one · 2026Article
- An ODE based neural network approach for PM2.5 forecasting.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
In many deep learning tasks, it is assumed that the data used in the training process is sampled from the same distribution. However, this may not be accurate for data collected from different contexts or during different periods. For instance, the temperatures in a city can vary from year to year due to various unclear reasons. In this paper, we utilized three distinct statistical techniques to analyze annual data drifting at various stations. These techniques calculate the P values for each station by comparing data from five years (2014-2018) to identify data drifting phenomena. To find out the data drifting scenario those statistical techniques and calculate the P value from those techniques to measure the data drifting in specific locations. From those statistical techniques, the highest drifting stations can be identified from the previous year's datasets To identify data drifting and highlight areas with significant drift, we utilized meteorological air quality and weather data in this study. We proposed two models that consider the characteristics of data drifting for PM2.5 prediction and compared them with various deep learning models, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and its variants, for predictions from the next hour to the 64th hour. Our proposed models significantly outperform traditional neural networks. Additionally, we introduced a wrapped loss function incorporated into a model, resulting in more accurate results compared to those using the original loss function alone and prediction has been evaluated by RMSE, MAE and MAPE metrics. The proposed Front-loaded connection model(FLC) and Back-loaded connection model (BLC) solve the data drifting issue and the wrap loss function also help alleviate the data drifting problem with model training and works for the neural network models to achieve more accurate results. Eventually, the experimental results have shown that the proposed model performance enhanced from 24.1% -16%, 12%-8.3% respectively at 1h-24h, 32h-64h with compared to baselines BILSTM model, by 24.6% -11.8%, 10%-10.2% respectively at 1h-24h, 32h-64h compared to CNN model in hourly PM2.5 predictions.
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.