ArticlePloS one2026
Sensitivity of machine learning regression models to data structure and quality in crop yield prediction.
Article in PloS one, 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
Accurate crop yield prediction is essential for agricultural planning, yet machine learning (ML) models remain highly sensitive to the quality and structure of input data. This study uses simulated datasets to systematically investigate how data structure (sample size and number of predictors), data imperfections (missing values and multicollinearity), and pre-processing methods (imputation techniques and principal component analysis) influence ML regression performance. The performance of ML-based models (RF, SVM, MLR, XGBoost, LightGBM, NNet, and kNN) on the pre-processed data was evaluated. In total, each algorithm was tested on 1,728 datasets and pre-processing scenarios, yielding 12,096 model-scenario evaluations across the seven ML algorithms. Results show that missing data decreases performance (R2 drops by up to 20.63%; MAE increases by 12.67%), while multicollinearity may inflate R2 values despite poorer MAE performance. Larger sample sizes consistently improve prediction accuracy (R2 = +18.87%; MAE = -8.16%), whereas more predictors generally reduce it (R2 = -8.47%; MAE = +44.74%). Regression-based imputation improved both R2 and MAE the most, while RF demonstrated greater robustness across varying conditions. These simulation findings were further validated on five real-world crop datasets (Maize, Yam, Cassava, Sorghum, and Peanuts), confirming that despite RF remains the safest and most robust default, no single pre-processing strategy is universally optimal and that the selection of imputation method and dimensionality reduction must be strictly contingent upon the dataset's specific missingness rate and correlation structure. Overall, this study highlights the complex interplay between data characteristics and pre-processing, urging the development of clearer guidelines for applying ML to agricultural datasets.
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.