ArticleScientific reports2025
Global or local modeling for XGBoost in geospatial studies upon simulated data and German COVID-19 infection forecasting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods from artificial intelligence (AI) and, in particular, machine learning and deep learning, have advanced rapidly in recent years and have been applied to multiple fields including geospatial analysis. Due to the spatial heterogeneity and the fact that conventional methods can not mine large data, geospatial studies typically model homogeneous regions locally within the entire study area. However, AI models can process large amounts of data, and, theoretically, the more diverse the train data, the more robust a well-trained model will be. In this paper, we study a typical machine learning method XGBoost, with the question: Is it better to build a single global or multiple local models for XGBoost in geospatial studies? To compare the global and local modeling, XGBoost is first studied on simulated data and then also studied to forecast daily infection cases of COVID-19 in Germany. The results indicate that if the data under different relationships between independent and dependent variables are balanced and the corresponding value ranges are similar, i.e., low spatial variation, global modeling of XGBoost is better for most cases; otherwise, local modeling of XGBoost is more stable and better, especially for the secondary data. Besides, local modeling has the potential of using parallel computing because each sub-model is trained independently, but the spatial partition of local modeling requires extra attention and can affect results.
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.