ArticleScientific reports2025
Surface water quality classification and prediction model based on multiple machine learning algorithms.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the context of worsening global water scarcity and prominent water pollution issues, precise water quality assessment and prediction are crucial for water resource management. Addressing the shortcomings of traditional methods in multi-parameter collaborative analysis, class imbalance handling, and nonlinear fitting, this study focuses on Heilongjiang Province, China, to construct a multi-parameter watershed water quality level prediction system comprising "data preprocessing-feature dimensionality reduction-Model Optimization" multi-parameter watershed water quality level prediction system, combining Principal Component Analysis (PCA), C4.5 decision tree, Backpropagation (BP) neural network, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks for the study. The study collected 31,289 samples from 23 monitoring stations in the region between May and October 2023. After balancing the data using SMOTE oversampling and retaining information through PCA dimension reduction, the data were input into the four models. The results showed that PCA-C4.5 achieved an total accuracy of 87.26% but was weak in identifying small samples, while PCA-BP achieved the best total accuracy of 94.52%. PCA-CNN (93.27%) was good at capturing local features, and PCA-LSTM (93.42%) was good at capturing temporal patterns. This study confirms the feasibility of comparing and optimizing multiple algorithms (including C4.5 decision tree, BP neural network, CNN, and LSTM combined with PCA dimensionality reduction), providing a new method for watershed monitoring. Future research could incorporate attention mechanisms or multi-source data to enhance model performance.
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.