ArticleMethodsX2026
A tiered spatial validation workflow for geographic prediction models.
Article in MethodsX, 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
Geographically indexed observations violate the exchangeability assumed by ordinary random validation. We present a tiered spatial validation workflow that separates interpolation within an observed geographic mixture from transfer to a distinct area. The workflow combines random folds, a size matched random control, coordinate clusters, spectral communities of a nearest neighbor graph, administrative holdouts, and an external regional stress test. It reports pooled R squared and root mean squared error, repeated seed variability, spatial autocorrelation, and sensitivity to block scale. The workflow is dataset agnostic and is demonstrated on 211 geolocated Baltimore house sales predicted from structural attributes. Random validation exceeded coordinate cluster and graph partition validation, and the size matched control ruled out a training size artifact. Administrative and external region holdouts reduced apparent performance further, and coordinate cluster validation was closer to true external region transfer than random validation but remained optimistic. The workflow is intended for geographic machine learning studies that need to match performance claims to a stated deployment setting. •The workflow distinguishes interpolation, separation within an observed network, and external geographic transfer. •Matched size controls, repeated partitions, autocorrelation diagnostics, and regional holdouts make the validation gap interpretable. •A dataset agnostic reference implementation is demonstrated on a public housing dataset unrelated to the motivating application.
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.