ArticleScientific reports2025
A predictive model for damp risk in english housing with explainable AI.
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
Damp in residential buildings poses risks to indoor air quality, occupant health, and structural integrity, and affects up to 27% of homes in the England. This study develops a predictive model for damp risk, using 2,073 inspection records from a housing association across 125 local authorities. Homes were labelled as damp (1,630) or non-damp (443), with data supplemented by national Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) records, incorporating building characteristics and energy efficiency indicators. To evaluate model performance, both a balanced dataset (869 homes, 426 damp, 443 non-damp) and a larger imbalanced dataset (2,073 homes) were used. Seven machine learning algorithms were deployed, with the best-performing model achieving 0.636 accuracy on balanced data and 0.793 on imbalanced data. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis identified heating cost, energy consumption, and wall energy efficiency as the strongest predictors of damp. Statistical tests and causal analysis were applied to interpret SHAP results, offering insights into potential damp risk and mitigations. The findings suggest that machine learning can support early identification of homes likely to develop damp, helping housing managers prioritise interventions before damp issues escalate.
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.