Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017797›Full record

ArticleEnvironmetrics2025

Assessing predictability of environmental time series with statistical and machine learning models.

Matthew Bonas, Abhirup Datta, Christopher K Wikle, Edward L Boone, Faten S Alamri, Bhava Vyasa Hari, Indulekha Kavila, Susan J Simmons, Shannon M Jarvis, Wesley S Burr and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Matthew BonasDept. of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0943-801X
Abhirup DattaDept. of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Christopher K WikleDept. of Statistics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0655-2696
Edward L BooneDept. of Statistical Sciences and Operations Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0755-6899
Faten S AlamriDept. of Mathematical Sciences, College of Science, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Bhava Vyasa HariWipro Limited, Bengaluru, India.
Indulekha KavilaSchool of Pure and Applied Physics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6637-576X
Susan J SimmonsInstitute for Advanced Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Shannon M JarvisDept. of Mathematics, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3399-3294
Wesley S BurrDept. of Mathematics, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2058-1899
Daniel E PagendamCSIRO Data61, Eveleigh, Brisbane, Australia.
Won ChangDiv. of Statistics and Data Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3556-1249
Stefano CastruccioDept. of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6728-965X

Funding

Statistical methods for air-pollution studies using low-cost monitorsR01ES033739 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Abhirup Datta · 2022 to 2026
$1.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES033739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ever increasing popularity of machine learning methods in virtually all areas of science, engineering and beyond is poised to put established statistical modeling approaches into question. Environmental statistics is no exception, as popular constructs such as neural networks and decision trees are now routinely used to provide forecasts of physical processes ranging from air pollution to meteorology. This presents both challenges and opportunities to the statistical community, which could contribute to the machine learning literature with a model-based approach with formal uncertainty quantification. Should, however, classical statistical methodologies be discarded altogether in environmental statistics, and should our contribution be focused on formalizing machine learning constructs? This work aims at providing some answers to this thought-provoking question with two time series case studies where selected models from both the statistical and machine learning literature are compared in terms of forecasting skills, uncertainty quantification and computational time. Relative merits of both class of approaches are discussed, and broad open questions are formulated as a baseline for a discussion on the topic.

Indexed as

environmental modelingforecastingtime seriesuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40017797
PMCPMC11864785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.