ArticleScientific reports2026
Integration of geospatial techniques and artificial neural networks for groundwater potential zonation in India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study delineates Groundwater Potential Zones (GWPZs) in the Mahi River Basin (MRB), where increasing groundwater stress is driven by urbanization, intensive agriculture, and limited recharge. Ten predictive factors: geology, geomorphology, slope, lineament density, drainage density, land use/land cover (LULC), Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI), Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI), and Toposoil Grain Size Index (TGSI), were derived from multisource satellite imagery (Landsat 8 OLI/TIRS, Sentinel-2, SRTM DEM) and field observations. An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model assigned nonlinear contribution weights to these inputs and generated a GWPZ map with five classes: Very Good (5.24%), Good (16.35%), Moderate (29.89%), Poor (30.88%), and Very Poor (17.64%). Model performance was validated quantitatively using the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC = 0.850). Additional validation using 350 well locations showed strong spatial correspondence between predicted zones and groundwater depth. The Kruskal-Wallis H test (H = 42.87, p < 0.001) confirmed significant hydrogeological differences among ANN-predicted classes, while Moran's I (0.037, p = 0.46) demonstrated spatial independence of prediction residuals. More than 62% of the basin falls within Moderate to Very Poor zones, emphasizing the need for strategic groundwater recharge planning. The integration of ANN with remote sensing and GIS offers a robust, data-driven model for sustainable groundwater resource management in semi-arid and data-poor regions.
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.