ArticleScientific reports2025
Improving landslide susceptibility prediction through ensemble recursive feature elimination and meta-learning framework.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Geographically Weighted Random Forest Considering Spatial Heterogeneity for Landslide Susceptibility Assessment: A Case Study in Yingjiang County.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- National-scale landslide susceptibility and risk mapping of India using a hybrid data-driven approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Monitoring strain evolution in water-sand systems using distributed acoustic sensing for geohazard early warning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Landslides pose significant threats to ecosystems, lives, and economies, particularly in the geologically fragile Sub-Himalayan region of West Bengal, India. This study enhances landslide susceptibility prediction by developing an ensemble framework integrating Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) with meta-learning techniques. Seven advanced machine learning models- Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Extremely Randomized Trees (ET), Gradient Boosting (GB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and a Meta Classifier (MC) were applied using Remote Sensing and GIS tools to identify key landslide-conditioning factors and classify susceptibility zones. Model performance was assessed through metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and AUC of the ROC curve. Among the models, the Meta Classifier (MC) achieved the highest accuracy (0.956) and AUC (0.987), demonstrating superior predictive ability. Gradient Boosting (GB), XGBoost, and RF also performed well, with accuracies of 0.943 and AUC values of 0.987 (GB and XGBoost) and 0.983 (RF). Extremely Randomized Trees (ET) exhibited the highest accuracy (0.946) among individual models and an AUC of 0.985. SVM and LR, while slightly less accurate (0.941 and 0.860, respectively), provided valuable insights, with SVM achieving an AUC of 0.972 and LR achieving 0.935. The models effectively delineated landslide susceptibility into five zones (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high), with high and very high susceptibility zones concentrated in Darjeeling and Kalimpong subdivisions. These zones are influenced by intense rainfall, unstable geological structures, and anthropogenic activities like deforestation and urbanization. Notably, ET, RF, GB, and XGBoost demonstrated efficiency in feature selection, requiring fewer input variables while maintaining high performance. This study establishes a benchmark for landslide susceptibility mapping, providing a scalable and adaptable framework for geospatial hazard prediction. The findings hold significant implications for land-use planning, disaster management, and environmental conservation in vulnerable regions worldwide.
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.