ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating model robustness in landslide susceptibility mapping using a unified data-consistent framework in northern Thailand.
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
Landslide susceptibility mapping (LSM) is a critical tool for hazard mitigation in mountainous regions. However, the reliability of existing models remains uncertain due to inconsistencies in data quality, sampling strategies, and validation approaches. Although machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models often report high predictive accuracy, their performance may not be robust or transferable, particularly in data-constrained tropical environments. To address this limitation, this study develops a unified, data-consistent evaluation framework to compare statistical, ML, and DL approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Luang Prabang Range, northern Thailand. Five models, including Frequency Ratio (FR), Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), were applied using the same landslide inventory, conditioning factors, and validation strategy to ensure a fair comparison. The results indicate that RF achieved the most stable and reliable performance (AUC = 0.942), followed by XGBoost (0.930), CNN (0.914), LSTM (0.902), and FR (0.865). While DL models demonstrated strong predictive capability, their performance was more sensitive to data limitations and model configuration. In contrast, RF provided a better balance between accuracy, robustness, and data efficiency. The findings demonstrate that differences in model performance are influenced not only by algorithm selection but also by data structure and parameter settings. The main contribution of the study is the implementation of a unified evaluation framework that enables more reliable assessment of model robustness, uncertainty, and interpretability. This study provides practical guidance for model selection in landslide susceptibility mapping and highlights the importance of data consistency and model transparency, particularly in tropical mountainous regions where data limitations are common.
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.