ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning approaches for enhanced estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo): a comparative evaluation.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is critical for effective water resource management, particularly in regions with limited meteorological data. However, existing empirical and deep learning models often require extensive data or complex modeling, limiting their practical application in data-scarce environments. This study innovatively applies static (non-sequential) machine learning models K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Decision Tree (DT), and Random Forest (RF) justified by temporal dependency analysis, to estimate daily ETo using varying input scenarios, from full-feature datasets to minimal single-variable inputs. Results show that RF outperforms other models, achieving a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.52 mm/day and a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.96, with temperature and solar radiation identified as key predictors. These findings highlight the practicality of RF for robust and efficient ETo estimation, offering a reliable tool for water management and agricultural planning in resource-constrained settings.
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.