ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of CNN-LSTM and CNN-BiLSTM hybrid deep learning models for solar radiation prediction.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solar radiation forecasting is a complex task since the radiation signal is nonlinear, intermittent and is significantly influenced by meteorological variability, which makes it vital for PV planning, renewable energy planning and stability of the smart grid. In this work, a replicable comparison between CNN-LSTM and CNN-BiLSTM models for one-step ahead solar clearness-index forecasting based on multivariate climate variables from NASA POWER dataset for Delhi, India, is presented. Under identical preprocessing, windowing, chronological splitting, and training conditions, CNN-LSTM achieved MAE = 0.0880, RMSE = 0.1100, R2 = 0.3100, EVS = 0.3154, WI = 0.6317, and APB = 1.89%, whereas CNN-BiLSTM obtained MAE = 0.1015, RMSE = 0.1224, R2 = 0.1456, EVS = 0.1998, WI = 0.5261, and APB = 5.98%. The Skill Scores shown and the negative values for direct clearness-index prediction do not imply that the persistence reference was unattainable, but rather reveal that the results are a controlled model-to-model comparison and not evidence of state-of-the-art superiority. Reconstructed all-sky irradiance produced stronger agreement with observations (MAE = 0.4353, RMSE = 0.5417, R2 = 0.7884, EVS = 0.7965, WI = 0.9299, and APB = 3.90%). The main task of CNN-LSTM is to provide a practical balance between accuracy and efficiency in this experimental context, and further testing with other locations, more powerful baselines and probabilistic forecasting techniques is needed.
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.