Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41724811›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Integrating geospatial intelligence and machine learning for flood susceptibility mapping.

Mehdi Rahimi, Bahram Malekmohammadi, Mohammad Karimi Firozjaei, Reza Kerachian, Jamal Jokar Arsanjani, Mou Leong Tan, Joseph Awange, Dragan Savic, Qingyun Duan, Amir AghaKouchak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mehdi RahimiGraduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Bahram MalekmohammadiGraduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. malekb@ut.ac.ir.
Mohammad Karimi FirozjaeiCollege of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Reza KerachianSchool of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Jamal Jokar ArsanjaniGeoinformatics Research Group, Department of Planning, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Meyers Vænge 15, 2450, Copenhagen, AC, Denmark.
Mou Leong TanGeoInformatic Unit, Geography Section, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Minden, Penang, Malaysia.
Joseph AwangeDepartment of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Dragan SavicCentre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK.
Qingyun DuanCollege of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, Jiangsu, China.
Amir AghaKouchakDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flood susceptibility mapping using machine learning models and remote sensing datasets has emerged as an effective approach for identifying flood-prone areas. The main objective of this study was to evaluate flood susceptibility using five ML algorithms: Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and Generalized Linear Model (GLM), as well as to assess the performance of their combination through an ensemble voting model (integrating RF, XGBoost, LightGBM, DT, and GLM). Flood extent data from 2000 to 2018 were obtained from the Global Flood Database (GFD), while ancillary spatial data related to climate, topography, hydrological, and land cover were collected from multiple sources. The individual models exhibited varying predictive performances, with XGB (AUC = 0.985), RF (AUC = 0.984), and LightGBM (AUC = 0.982) showing strong and statistically robust results. The DT model achieved moderate accuracy (AUC = 0.972), while GLM performed the least effectively (AUC = 0.879). Subsequently, the ensemble voting model outperformed all individual algorithms (AUC = 0.994), improving mapping accuracy and increasing reliability in identifying high- susceptibility areas. Overall, the results indicate that advanced ML techniques, particularly ensemble frameworks, are highly effective tools for spatial flood susceptibility analysis and risk management.

Indexed as

Flood mappingGeospatial data analysisMachine learningMappingSusceptibility

Identifiers

PMID41724811
PMCPMC13031903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.