ArticleScientific reports2026
Distinguishing compound and cumulative hazards using machine learning and fuzzy logic in multi-hazard susceptibility mapping.
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
This study presents an integrated multi-hazard susceptibility assessment for a mountainous region in northern Iran, focusing on four major hazards: flood, avalanche, rockfall, and landslide. Three machine learning models Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) were applied to model single-hazard susceptibility using 21 topographic, climatic, geological, land-cover, and proximity-related variables at 30 m spatial resolution. Model performance was evaluated using ROC-AUC, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score based on field-validated hazard inventories. The results demonstrate that RF achieved the highest predictive performance for flood (90.96%) and rockfall (91.63%), while SVM showed competitive performance for avalanche (85.70%) and landslide (86.20%) susceptibility, reflecting differences in dominant hazard processes and model sensitivity to nonlinear and threshold-based relationships. To extend beyond single-hazard assessment, a Fuzzy Logic-based integration framework was implemented using AND, OR, and GAMMA operators to explicitly represent alternative hazard interaction mechanisms. The AND operator identified spatially constrained but high-confidence compound hazard hotspots, whereas the GAMMA operator captured broader zones of cumulative susceptibility driven by shared environmental controls. Comparative analysis indicates that fuzzy integration improves overall multi-hazard prediction, with the AND operator achieving the highest predictive reliability (ROC-AUC = 92.20%, F1-score = 93.83%), while GAMMA provides a more generalized but spatially comprehensive susceptibility pattern. The proposed framework highlights the importance of combining model selection with integration logic and provides a robust basis for regional-scale hazard assessment and spatial planning in complex mountainous environments.
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.