ArticleScientific reports2025
Benchmarking performance of annual burn probability modeling against subsequent wildfire activity in California.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wildfire simulation is deployed extensively to support risk management, and in the US has driven billions in federal investment. Foundational to strategic risk analysis is spatial information on the likelihood of burning in a fire year, typically provided by burn probability (BP) models. The recency of BP maps is a key driver of their accuracy, especially in disturbed landscapes that have experienced changes in fire spread potential. Few published examples exist comparing BP values against subsequent fire activity, and none to our knowledge evaluate annually updated BP maps. Here, we present a novel performance evaluation of the operational wildfire simulation system FSim, confronting updated BP maps with subsequent fire activity across the state of California over a 4-year period (2020-2023). Results show strong predictive ability: across 5 equal-area BP classes, 56.7-79.8% of the burned area occurred in the top 20% of mapped area; mean (median) BP values in burned areas were 238.5-348.8% (551.4-880.7%) greater than in unburned areas; differences in empirical cumulative distribution functions of BP for burned/unburned areas were statistically significant; Logarithmic Skill Scores ranged from - 0.072 to 0.389 against two reference models. Findings indicate reliable forecast performance and useful application of up-to-date BP maps, critical to support ongoing wildfire risk mitigation.
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.