ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of the machine learning and deep learning models with SHAP strategy for predicting groundwater levels in South Korea.
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.
- Development and Interpretability Analysis of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Models for Fat and Protein Prediction in Foxtail Millet [Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this research, the groundwater levels (GWLs) were predicted by employing machine learning (i.e., stochastic gradient boosting (SGB), random forest (RF), generalized regression neural networks (GRNN), and group of method data handling (GMDH)) and deep learning (i.e., deep echo state network (Deep ESN) and long short-term memory (LSTM)) based on three predictive scenarios, Jeju Island, South Korea. In scenario 01, GWLs in Bongseong well was calculated utilizing rainfall, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and various GWLs in different wells. Based on scenario 02, GWLs in Bongseong well was calculated using rainfall, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and groundwater data (i.e., temperature, electric conductivity, and pressure). Finally, considering scenario 03, GWLs in Bongseong well were calculated by employing rainfall, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and GWLs from 1-day to 15-day lead time. Five evaluation measures, including root mean squared error (RMSE), correlation coefficient (CC), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), relative error (RE), and root relative squared error (RRSE), were reflected for the predictive accuracy of developed models. Results showed that RF3 (RMSE = 0.053 m, CC = 1.000, NSE = 1.000, RE = 1.114, and RRSE = 0.013) based on scenario 03 performed the best predictive accuracy in GWLs of Bongseong well. Furthermore, the additional contributions of this research were achieved by the enhanced comparative evaluation through the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) strategy and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test. The sensitivity analysis utilizing the SHAP strategy determined the significant feature indicator (i.e., GWL in 1-day lead-time) explaining its contribution to the predictive ability of developed models. The results of one-way ANOVA test provided that the predicted values were extracted from the same population as the measured values based on all models in scenario 03.
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.