ArticleScientific reports2025
Application of smart technologies for predicting soil erosion patterns.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil is a critical natural resource, and accurate erosion susceptibility assessment is vital for the optimal management and development of soil resources. Erosion susceptibility assessment is necessary for long-term conservation plans, but the process can be expensive and time-consuming over large areas. It is imperative to examine the impact of water-induced erosion on cultivated lands, as it can cause significant damage. This study evaluates the effectiveness of four data-driven approaches (biogeography-based optimization, earthworm optimization algorithm, symbiotic organisms search, and whale optimization algorithm) combined with artificial neural network models for the assessment of erosion susceptibility. The examined criteria include 14 geographic and environmental criteria, and the data used in a ratio of 70 to 30 for training and testing operations. And its results were measured by AUC values. The evaluation of AUC accuracy indices revealed compelling results. Specifically, in the case of SOS-MLP, the highest AUC values were observed, reaching 0.9973 for test data and 0.9296 for train data. Conversely, for WOA-MLP, the AUC values obtained were slightly lower but still notable, registering at 0.9809 for test data and 0.959 for train data. These values were also calculated for BBO-MLP (0.999 and 0.9327) and EWA-MLP (0.9304 and 0.9296) in the training and testing phases, respectively. Results showed that all four methods could successfully evaluate erosion susceptibility according to AUC values greater than 0.92, especially the BBO-MLP with the highest AUC values. Therefore, the findings of this study have shown that the combined optimization algorithms and Machine Learning used in this research have a suitable ability to optimize the artificial neural network and are very useful for identifying areas sensitive to erosion.
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.