ArticleScientific reports2026
A conditioning factor selection framework considering sample heterogeneity in debris flow 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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debris flow susceptibility mapping (DFSM) is critical for disaster prevention, while challenges still exist in addressing selecting conditioning factors. This study aims to propose a novel framework for debris flow conditioning factor selection considering the sample heterogeneity problem. Utilizing the fuzzy C-means clustering technique, the study area was segmented into multiple homogeneous subareas. The predictive capacity of the conditioning factors was assessed by applying the information gain ratio approach. This evaluation was conducted on both the total dataset prior to clustering and the homogeneous datasets derived from the clustering procedure. Then random forest modeling was implemented on all the datasets following the elimination of the two conditioning factors exhibiting the weakest predictive ability. The prediction results of models built on homogeneous datasets need to be merged for evaluation. The total dataset and homogeneous datasets with all conditioning factors retained were also involved in model training for comparison. The results showed that reasonable conditioning factor selection could significantly improve the model performance. In addition, the conditioning factor selection framework proposed in this study that considers sample heterogeneity could provide better conditioning factor combinations for DFSM.
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.