ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring PM
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-learning algorithms to identify key practices contributing to variation in biosecurity levels on Japanese commercial swine farms.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2026Article
- Applicability analysis of tree-based ensemble learning for air pollutant prediction models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Particulate Matters PM[Formula: see text] and PM[Formula: see text] present a major health and environmental concern in urban regions. This research compares machine learning and time series models, such as Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Facebook Prophet, for predictions of these matters. Their performances have been evaluated over 1-2 hours, 1 day and 1 week forecasting periods using five years real-life data from six ground stations in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Performance metrics including Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Percent Bias (PBIAS) were applied. Linear SVR was generally the best performing model for PM[Formula: see text] predictions at all stations with averages of 18.7% and 28.2% MAPE for 1 and 2-hour periods, respectively. However, CNN performed best in forecasting PM[Formula: see text] for 1-hour horizon, with an average MAPE of 12.6%. For the 2-hour forecast, SVR outperformed other models, with 18.3% MAPE. Facebook Prophet consistently outperformed others for both PM[Formula: see text] and PM[Formula: see text] with 21.8% and 13.4% MAPE for 1-day and 21.3% and 13.8% MAPE for 1-week, respectively. These best performing models yielded similar RMSE, MAE, and PBIAS values for both PM[Formula: see text] and PM[Formula: see text].
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.