ArticleScientific reports2026
Spatially validated assessment of seismic hazard-prone environments in Myanmar using multi-source data and interpretable machine learning.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurately assessing seismic hazard-prone environments in complex tectonic regions faces multiple challenges, particularly in distinguishing physical drivers from environmental proxies and mitigating spatial overfitting due to intricate interactions between geological and environmental factors. Taking Myanmar as a case study, this research proposes an integrated framework fusing multi-source geospatial data with interpretable ensemble learning to map catalog-conditioned seismic hazard-prone environments based on historical data (1970–2024). Unlike traditional perspectives that treat surface factors as direct causal drivers, we reinterpret variables such as elevation and slope as geomorphic phenotypic signatures that co-vary with seismic activity. To eliminate data leakage caused by spatial autocorrelation, a rigorous Spatial Block Cross-Validation (SBCV) strategy was implemented. Results indicate that compared to the overly optimistic outcome yielded by random splitting (AUC = 0.948), SBCV provides a more robust and conservative performance assessment (AUC = 0.890), effectively confirming the model’s generalization capability across unseen geographic units. Among the five compared models, the Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) demonstrated superior performance. To resolve the “black-box” nature of machine learning, we integrated micro-scale SHAP values with macro-scale GeoDetector analysis. Both validation methods consistently identified Elevation, Slope, and Distance to Active Faults as core discriminators (cumulative contribution > 60%), revealing that high-susceptibility zones are primarily characterized by high-relief terrain signatures that spatially coincide with active tectonic belts. Furthermore, by overlaying Nighttime Light (NTL) data, the study identified a significant risk overlap of “high-hazard environments and high exposure” within the Mandalay-Sagaing urban corridor. This study provides a scientifically rigorous and spatially validated paradigm for seismic environmental pattern recognition in data-scarce regions, offering an actionable scientific basis for regional disaster risk governance.
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.