Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41902163›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Explicit Features Versus Implicit Spatial Relations in Geomorphometry: A Comparative Analysis for DEM Error Correction in Complex Geomorphological Regions.

Shuyu Zhou, Mingli Xie, Nengpan Ju, Changyun Feng, Qinghua Lin, Zihao Shu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Shuyu ZhouState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.ORCID 0009-0009-9776-0068
Mingli XieState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7568-3748
Nengpan JuState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.
Changyun FengState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.
Qinghua LinState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.
Zihao ShuState Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.

Funding

Open Fund of the Badong National Observatory and Research Station of Geohazards No. BNORSG-202406Open Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection No. SKLGP2024K030Open Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering No. SKHL2422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) exhibit systematic biases constrained by acquisition geometry and surface penetration. This study aims to evaluate whether the increasing complexity of geometric deep learning (e.g., Graph Neural Networks, GNNs) is justified by performance gains over established feature engineering paradigms (e.g., XGBoost) under the constraints of sparse altimetry supervision. We established a rigorous comparative framework across four mainstream products-ALOS World 3D, Copernicus DEM, SRTM GL1, and TanDEM-X-using Sichuan Province, China, as a representative natural laboratory. Our results reveal a fundamental scale mismatch (where the ~485 m average spacing of sampled altimetry footprints dwarfs the local terrain resolution): despite their topological complexity, Hybrid GNN models fail to establish a statistically significant accuracy advantage over the systematically optimized XGBoost baseline, demonstrating RMSE parity. Mechanistically, we uncover a critical divergence in decision logic: XGBoost relies on a stable "Physics Skeleton" consistently dominated by deterministic features (terrain aspect and vegetation density), whereas GNNs exhibit severe "Attribution Stochasticity" (ρ ≈ 0.63-0.77). The GNN component acts as a residual-dependent latent feature learner rather than discovering universal topological laws. We conclude that for geospatial regression tasks relying on sparse supervision, "Physics Trumps Geometry." A "Feature-First" paradigm that prioritizes robust, domain-knowledge-based physical descriptors outweighs the indeterminate complexity of "Black Box" architectures. This study underscores the imperative of prioritizing explanatory stability over marginal accuracy gains to foster trusted Geo-AI.

Indexed as

DEM error correctionExplainable AI (XAI)geospatial AIGraph Neural Networks (GNNs)ICESat-2model comparison

Identifiers

PMID41902163
PMCPMC13030274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.