Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668808›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Mapping burnt areas using very high-resolution imagery and deep learning algorithms - a case study in Bandipur, India.

Sai Balakavi, Vineet Vadrevu, Kristofer Lasko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

3 authors.

Sai BalakaviUniversities Space Research Association (USRA) Science and Technology Institute, Huntsville, Alabama, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8800-9852
Vineet VadrevuJames Clemens High School, Madison, Alabama, United States of America.
Kristofer LaskoGeospatial Research Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8980-8943

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Burnt area (BA) mapping is crucial for assessing wildfire impact, guiding restoration efforts, and improving fire management strategies. Accurate BA data helps estimate carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, and land surface properties post-fire changes. In this study, we designed and evaluated two deep learning-based architectures, a Custom UNET and a novel UNET-Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), for burnt area classification using PlanetScope data over Bandipur, India. Both models demonstrated high accuracy in classifying burnt and unburnt areas. Performance metrics, including Precision, Recall, F1-Score, Accuracy, Mean Intersection over Union (IoU), and Dice Coefficient, revealed that the UNET-GRU hybrid consistently outperformed the Custom UNET, particularly in Recall and spatial overlap metrics. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve indicated excellent classification performance for both models, with the UNET-GRU achieving a higher AUC (0.98) compared to the Custom UNET (0.96). These findings highlight the UNET-GRU's enhanced capacity to handle finer distinctions and capture spatial and contextual features, making it a robust choice for burnt area classification in the study area. While both models avoided overfitting and maintained generalizability, integrating GRU into the UNET architecture proved particularly effective for precise classification and spatial accuracy. Our results highlight the potential of the novel UNET-GRU for burnt area mapping using very high-resolution data.

Indexed as

Deep LearningFiresAlgorithmsIndiaROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID40668808
PMCPMC12266457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.