ReviewCambridge prisms. Coastal futures2026
Toward transferable models for efficient spatiotemporal flood prediction across coastal-estuarine systems.
Review in Cambridge prisms. Coastal futures, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This perspective examines the application of transfer learning (TL) within deep learning (DL) frameworks for extreme water level (EWL) and spatiotemporal flood predictions. We discuss the main advantages of TL, such as enabling model transferability of pretrained DL models from/to diverse coastal-estuarine systems and reducing computational time compared to physics-based models. These advantages can accelerate the deployment of flood prediction models in data-limited locations. We also discuss challenges and limitations that hinder accurate pattern recognition and propagation of EWLs from gauge (observation) stations to surrounding locations within model domains. These limitations include dependence on similarity in data distributions, overfitting the training data and both lag and hysteresis effects in the timing of peak water levels and flood dynamics. Lastly, we explain several misconceptions and challenges in current DL approaches that hinder EWL and spatiotemporal flood prediction, including training models exclusively on extreme conditions, assessing accuracy solely through goodness-of-fit metrics, and connecting the model's knowledge of input data with physical explanations of flood processes without an adequate context. We argue that these challenges can be addressed by prioritizing storm-relevant patterns of the input data features as well as embedding spatial propagation of EWLs in DL frameworks to mimic coastal-estuarine hydrodynamic models. Ultimately, progress toward generalizable model transferability relies on the modeler's ability to incorporate physical understanding in DL architectures, alongside continued advances in physics-informed machine learning models via soft or hard constraint approaches. There remains substantial work to establish guidelines and/or formal procedures to develop robust, interpretable, and generalizable DL models for spatiotemporal flood prediction, thereby supporting effective flood management, mitigation, and emergency preparedness.
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.