ArticleScientific reports2025
Realistic daily discharge modelling in data-deficient regions using DL-assisted, parametrically-optimized hydrological model.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid development of deep learning (DL) is the most significant contemporary evolution of hydrological science, yet its limitations remain underexplored. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of DL-based, traditional, and hybrid hydrological models in streamflow simulation especially in data-deficient regions. Daily discharge flow of the four sub-catchments in Samar, Philippines were modeled using HEC-HMS, Univariate Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) Network, Classical GR4J and DL-assisted, parametrically- optimized GR4J. Results show that the classical GR4J underestimated the discharge, while the LSTM overestimated peaks. The DL-assisted, parametrically-optimized GR4J achieved the highest consistency and balance between realistic peak and low flow estimation, with NSE = 0.63-0.84, IA = 0.85-0.93, LMI = 0.76-0.82, and low MAPE (≤ 0.03) and RSR (≤ 0.02). Although the Univariate LSTM captured general trends well, it underestimated some peaks despite reaching high values in performance metrics. Many studies highlight DL's hydrological modeling power but ignore its limits and hybrid model benefits. The results highlight that neither DL nor classical models alone are sufficient as DL-assisted approaches yield more reliable and realistic hydrological simulations, particularly in climate-sensitive, data-deficient regions like Samar.
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.