ArticleScientific reports2026
Flood susceptibility assessment using three machine learning techniques and comparison of their performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most common natural disasters is flooding, which has the potential to seriously harm environments and infrastructure. Flood susceptibility mapping (FSM) is the main way to manage flood risk. It measures how likely a region is to flood in a quantitative way. The purpose of this study was to develop state-of-the-art ensemble machine learning (ML) models for flood prediction and to identify the most suitable approach for accurate flood susceptibility mapping. This study leverages diverse datasets, including elevation, slope, aspect, plan curvature, topographic wetness index, stream power index, distance from rivers, soil, rainfall, land use/land cover, and drainage density, which were used as conditioning factors to evaluate flood susceptibility in the Choke Watershed. Three machine learning (ML) algorithms were employed: Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). Model performance was assessed using confusion matrix metrics and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). The Gradient Boosting (GB) and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models scored the highest in terms of test accuracy (0.97), followed by RF (0.96). This study is the first application of these models in the Choke Watershed for flood susceptibility mapping, with potential for broader applications to other natural disasters, including earthquakes and landslides. The results help strengthen global efforts aimed at mitigating natural disaster risks, particularly in Ethiopia, and advancing environmental sustainability.
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.