ArticleScientific reports2025
Artificial intelligence evaluation of nature based flood resilience in hilly terrain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Flood hazard assessment and zonal prioritization through an LR-bipolar triangular fuzzy hybrid decision-making approach.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hilly terrain has notable challenges of flash flooding, requiring a cost-effective and sustainable management approach. Nature-based solutions (NBS) provide significant sustainability, however need methodical assessment under diverse hydrological conditions. To fill this gap, the current investigation explores the significance of the NBS utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for optimizing flood resilience through the prediction of peak discharge generated from the hilly terrain. For this purpose, two AI advanced models including random forest (RF) and support vector regression (SVR) model were utilized for the assessment of laboratory scale data series of slope, rainfall intensity (P), and time ratio (T/Tc, T: total time, Tc: time of concentration) with flexible (FV) and rigid vegetation (RV). A total of 344 data series were collected, split into three different phases of training (70%), testing (15%), and validation (15%) for both AI models. The values of root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), and mean absolute error (MAE), along with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis, are used to assess the performance of AI models. Further Monte Carlo simulation was performed to clarify uncertainty and feature importance. The result demonstrated 8% more reduction of the peak discharge in the case of flexible vegetation, because of its surface resistance and infiltration capability. The RF model has greater prediction power compared to the SVR model Due to a higher R-value of 0.9809 for FV and 0.9906 for RV conditions. The result of SHAP analysis demonstrates greater influence of time ratio on peak discharge under FV (SHAP range:±25 and RV (SHAP range: ±30), while the moderate impact of rainfall intensity was observed in the case of FV (SHAP range: ±5) and RV (SHAP range: ±7). The findings concluded that AI-driven models utilized for NBS enhance resilience against flooding in hilly terrain. Urban planners and policymakers should utilize an AI-driven approach for nonlinear hydrological phenomena.
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.