ArticleScientific reports2026
Geological and machine learning based landslide risk assessment in the context of community knowledge and perception.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aizawl, located in Mizoram, northeast India, faces persistent landslide risk due to fragile geology, steep terrain, and unregulated urban expansion. This study assesses the correspondence between community perceived landslide drivers and scientifically derived factors. Research included questionnaire survey, field investigation, and Random Forest based susceptibility modelling (LSM). The survey indicated 66.9% of respondents had experienced landslides. Heavy rainfall (86.2%) and poor drainage (69.0%) were the dominant perceived triggers. Risk perception was statistically uniform across demographic groups (all p > 0.05). Causal knowledge showed a significant positive association with preparedness behaviour (Spearman ρ = 0.479, p < 0.001). The LSM classified 30.5% of the municipal area as very high susceptibility, capturing 78.8% of events (ROC-AUC = 0.726; F1 = 0.793); all failures coincided with settlement zones (38.3%). Geotechnical investigation showed moderate to high rock mass weathering. Out of 15 sites, 13 were classified as Zone IV (LHZ) and rated Bad (SMR). Planar, wedge, and toppling failures were confirmed. Cross scheme analysis demonstrated perfect rank agreement between LHZ and LSM hazard drivers (Spearman ρ = 1.000, p < 0.001), with directional alignment between community perceived causes and LSM factors (ρ = 0.600). These results establish a quantitative basis for community integrated landslide assessment in Aizawl; broader applicability requires validation under site specific geological and socio-cultural conditions.
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.