ArticleScientific data2026
Global 0.25-degree gridded Snow water equivalent data derived from machine learning using in-situ measurements.
Article in Scientific data, 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.
- Global 0.25-degree gridded Snow water equivalent data derived from machine learning using in-situ measurements.Scientific data · 2026Article
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
Abstract
In this study, we developed a machine learning-based global daily SWE product (SWEML) with 0.25° (~25 km) resolution for 1980-2020. Using k-means clustering, in-situ SWE measurements were grouped into 14 clusters, and a random forest model was trained on 11,687 grid points with meteorological forcing and terrain attributes. SWEML was compared with ten reference datasets representing diverse approaches, including land-atmosphere reanalysis without data assimilation (DA), systems incorporating DA, snow model simulations of varying complexity driven by reanalysis forcing with or without DA, and remote sensing products. The overall root mean square error (RMSE) and bias were 10.33 mm and -7.13 mm, respectively. Notably, SWEML achieved high accuracy in high-elevation regions such as the Rocky Mountains, with an RMSE of 7.30 mm and correlation coefficient of 0.98. It also agreed with the Gamma airborne SWE over North America and showed similar spatial patterns and peak SWE time series of the Andes Snow Reanalysis. These results highlight the robustness of SWEML in regions with and without training data.
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.