ArticleScientific reports2026
Integrating geospatial intelligence and machine learning for flood susceptibility mapping.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.