Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41136461›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Performance comparison of post-earthquake disaster susceptibility assessment models based on GIS: a case study of the Lushan County in Ya'an City, China.

Jifeng Lian, Zhijie Lei, Jiujiang Wu, Yu Liu, Fulei Shang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Jifeng LianSchool of Emergency Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhijie LeiSchool of Emergency Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jiujiang WuShock and Vibration of Engineering Materials, Structures Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang, 621010, China. wujiujiang1988@126.com.
Yu LiuSchool of Emergency Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Fulei ShangSchool of Emergency Management, Xihua University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

National Foreign Expert Project DL2023036001LNational Natural Science Foundation of China 42007247Nature Science Foundation of Sichuan Province 24NSFSC0394the open project of Key Laboratory of Intelligent Emergency Management, Xihua University 2023ZHYJGL-8the open project of State Key Laboratory of Performance Monitoring and Protecting of Rail Transit Infrastructure, East China Jiaotong University HJG2023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To verify the rationality of different mathematical models for susceptibility assessment of post-earthquake disasters, taking the hazard statistics of Lushan County in Ya'an City, China as an example, this study preliminarily selected 12 evaluation factors closely related to geological disasters, such as elevation, slope, and aspect, as well as 159 actual disaster sites based on Geographic Information System (GIS). Traditional susceptibility assessment models-including the information value (I) model, certain factor (CF) model, informative-logistic regression (I-LR) model, and certain factor-logistic regression (CF-LR) model-were applied, alongside the machine learning-based random forest (RF) model, to evaluate the susceptibility of local disasters. Thirty disaster sites that were not included in the models were selected as test samples, and the rationality and accuracy of the four mathematical models were evaluated and tested using the frequency ratio method and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve method, respectively. The results showed that all four traditional models indicated that the extremely high and high susceptibility areas of Lushan County are mainly concentrated in the low-altitude and valley areas in the south and central parts, while the low and extremely low susceptibility areas are distributed in the high mountainous and canyon areas in the north, which is basically consistent with the actual investigation. The AUC values for the four traditional models' evaluation accuracy, from high to low, are CF-LR (0.825), I-LR (0.822), I (0.816), and CF (0.815). The first two coupled models, which consider the weight coefficients of influencing factors, show slightly improved results compared to single models. However, the Random Forest model based on machine learning has an AUC value of 0.920 for evaluation accuracy, demonstrating the best performance. The research findings offer valuable insights for selecting regional susceptibility assessment models for post-earthquake disasters.

Indexed as

Accuracy verificationGeological disastersRandom forest modelSusceptibility assessmentTraditional assessment model

Identifiers

PMID41136461
PMCPMC12552574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.