ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of precipitation forecasting base on GraphCast over mainland China.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The accurate cumulative precipitation forecasts are essential for monitoring water resources and natural disasters. The combination of deep learning and big data has become a new direction for precipitation forecasting. However, the current large models are still lacking in-situ data verification. To accomplish this goal, the precipitation forecasting performance of a state-of-the-art model GraphCast was evaluated. Using the cumulative precipitation data from 2393 observation stations for the 1-3 day period as a reference, we assessed the cumulative precipitation in mainland China region for the 1-3 day period from 2020 to 2021, utilizing a high-resolution model with 0.25° × 0.25° grid spacing and 13 layers of parameters. The precipitation of European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) was also compared. The results show that: (1) During the 2020-2021 period, for the 1-day, 2-day, and 3-day cumulative precipitation forecasts, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values of GraphCast were primarily between 0.46 to 9.38 mm/d, 0.44 to 9.06 mm/d, and 0.44 to 9.06 mm/d, respectively. The Mean Error (ME) values were mainly between - 0.595 to 1.705 (0.01 mm). (2) As the forecast period extends, the forecasting capability of GraphCast declines. (3) In the 1-3 day cumulative precipitation forecasts for various stations in mainland China, GraphCast demonstrates higher predictive accuracy than ECMWF. (4) Compared to ECMWF, GraphCast demonstrated the best forecast performance in the temperate humid and semi-humid regions of Northeast China, with the RMSE being approximately 12% higher. Our study indicates that GraphCast demonstrates significant potential and higher accuracy in precipitation forecasting.
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.