ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of radar-based precipitation estimates during a flood event using rain gauge validation.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study uses dual-polarization radar data from two weather radars to assess the accuracy of estimating rainfall rate (R) from radar reflectivity (Z) using classical empirical Z–R relationships (Marshall–Palmer, Wexler, and Doumoulin–Cogombles). Three additional polarimetric relationships incorporating differential reflectivity (ZDR) were also analyzed. Calculations were carried out for seven altitude levels, representing a novel approach to verifying the vertical structure of the precipitation field. Radar data were validated against measurements from a rain gauge network, enabling an assessment of spatiotemporal consistency and rainfall estimation errors. The analysis covers measurements collected during the flood event that occurred in Poland in September 2024 (Genoa low-pressure system). The results indicate that for the analyzed extreme flood event, the most reliable precipitation totals were obtained using the polarimetric relationship based on ZDR (RMSE=2.20 mm±0.90 mm, MAE=1.84 mm±0.73 mm, and Bias=-0.67 mm±0.81 mm). It was demonstrated that under the studied extreme conditions, the proposed ZDR3 relationship exhibits approximately 69% lower Bias compared with the standard operational Marshall-Palmer method. The findings confirm the potential of polarimetric methods for rainfall estimation and their applicability in operational settings during similar extreme weather events, particularly in early warning and crisis management systems.
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.