Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40210905›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Enhancing landslide disaster prediction by evaluating non landslide area sampling in machine learning models for Spiti Valley India.

Devraj Dhakal, Kanwarpreet Singh, Kennedy C Onyelowe, Steven Alejandro Salazar Cazco, Abhishek Sharma, Nassir Alarifi, Fakhrul Islam, Randeep, Krishna Prakash Arunachalam, Youssef M Youssef

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. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Devraj DhakalDepartment of Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali, India.
Kanwarpreet SinghDepartment of Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali, India.
Kennedy C OnyeloweDepartment of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda. kennedychibuzor@kiu.ac.ug.
Steven Alejandro Salazar CazcoFacultad de Informática y Electrónica, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Panamericana Sur km. 1 1/2, 060155, Riobamba, Ecuador.
Abhishek SharmaDepartment of Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Mohali, India.
Nassir AlarifiDepartment of Geology & Geophysics, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, 11451, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fakhrul IslamUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 101408, China.
RandeepDepartment of Civil Engineering, Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed to be University), Agra, UP, 282005, India.
Krishna Prakash ArunachalamDepartamento de Ciencias de la Construcción, Facultad de Ciencias de la Construcción Ordenamiento Territorial, Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Santiago, Chile.
Youssef M YoussefGeological and Geophysical Engineering Department, Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, Suez University, Suez, 43518, Egypt.

Funding

This research was supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2025R804), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia RSPD2025R804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Landslides are well-known natural or quasi-natural hazards which can harm human lives, infrastructure, and the environment, particularly in mountainous regions like Spiti Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. The Spiti Valley in Himachal Pradesh, India, is prone to landslides due to its fragile geology, steep slopes, and unpredictable climate. These dangers threaten life, infrastructure, and the environment, requiring comprehensive landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) for mitigation and planning. Advanced machine learning and new sampling procedures may improve LSM accuracy and reliability in high-risk zones. This investigation aims to enhance LSM through a systematic evaluation of innovative sampling methodologies for non-landslide areas. This study focuses on assessing the effectiveness of two novel sampling methods: Buffer Zone Safe Points (BZSP) and Slope Buffer Safe Points (SBSP). Detailed susceptibility zonation maps were created employing advanced statistical techniques, specifically Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest (RF), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), allowing for an in-depth comparison of their predictive performance. The findings clearly indicate the advantages of the SBSP technique, showcasing notable improvements in performance across all metrics. In the analysis of Category-II, XGBoost showed a significant rise in the Area Under Curve (AUC) from 0.91 to 0.97, RF increased from 0.89 to 0.97, and KNN improved from 0.87 to 0.94, with corresponding enhancements in accuracy, sensitivity, kappa values, and F1-scores. These advancements highlight the capability of the SBSP method to enhance susceptibility predictions and reduce overestimation in areas of high vulnerability. The Landslide Density Index (LDI) supports these findings, as Category-II sampling provides more dependable estimates across all susceptibility classes, minimizing variability and improving interpretive confidence. This study emphasizes the essential importance of sophisticated sampling techniques in enhancing the dependability of LSM and establishes a fundamental framework for upcoming research focused on reducing landslide hazards in intricate landscapes. The results highlight the importance of integrating various conditioning factors and flexible approaches to enhance regional hazard evaluations and strengthen disaster readiness.

Indexed as

GeoinformaticsLandslide predictionLandslide susceptibility mapping (LSM)Machine learning modelsNon-Landslide samplingsSpiti Valley

Identifiers

PMID40210905
PMCPMC11985504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.