ArticlePeerJ2026
A spatially interpretable machine learning framework for urban waterlogging risk mapping in Beijing.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Spatial interrelationships between flood risk and ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region at multiple scales.Scientific reports · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urban waterlogging is an escalating challenge under rapid urbanization and climate change, yet accurate spatial prediction remains hindered by nonlinear drivers and spatial heterogeneity. This study proposes a spatially interpretable machine learning framework by integrating remote sensing and geospatial data with hybrid modeling. Using recorded waterlogging locations in Beijing, we constructed a balanced dataset with topographic, hydrological, land cover, and proximity-based predictors. Four machine learning algorithms-Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)-were evaluated, with XGBoost achieving the best classification performance (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.913 ± 0.055). To enhance spatial interpretability, two hybrid strategies were further developed: (1) XGBoost_MGWR, in which XGBoost serves as the primary predictor and MGWR corrects its spatially structured residuals, thereby improving spatial explanatory power; and (2) MGWR_XGBoost, where MGWR first models spatially varying effects and XGBoost subsequently fits the residuals to refine predictive performance. Results from spatially blocked five-fold cross-validation show that MGWR_XGBoost provides the best probabilistic accuracy (Brier = 0.289 ± 0.039) and the highest area under the precision recall (PR-AUC) (0.576), with substantially higher specificity (0.734) and a spatially stable local
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.