Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087346›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Global or local modeling for XGBoost in geospatial studies upon simulated data and German COVID-19 infection forecasting.

Ximeng Cheng, Jackie Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Ximeng ChengDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, 10587, Berlin, Germany. ximeng.cheng@hhi.fraunhofer.de.
Jackie MaDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, 10587, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Boosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsCOVID-19ForecastingArtificial IntelligenceComputer SimulationGermanyHumansMachine LearningModels, StatisticalSARS-CoV-2Machine learningSpatial heterogeneitySpatial partitioningSpatial variationTime-series forecasting

Identifiers

PMID40087346
PMCPMC11909275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.