ArticlePloS one2026
Climate-stratified assessment of PM2.5 using machine learning: Geographic controls dominate meteorological factors.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a major environmental concern, yet pollution assessment models are rarely tested across fundamentally different climate regimes. We develop a climate-stratified machine-learning framework using 49,997 monthly MERRA-2 satellite-assimilated samples (2019-2023) across five latitude-band climate zones, evaluated through Leave-One-Climate-Out (LOCO) cross-validation with nested hyperparameter tuning to prevent data leakage. Tuned LightGBM achieves a global LOCO R2 = 0.367 (MAE =6.43 μg m-3), but predictability varies substantially by zone: subtropical regions reach R2 = 0.604, while tropical regions achieve only R2 = 0.142, reflecting fundamental climate-dependent limits on meteorology-only models. SHAP analysis shows geographic coordinates-acting as proxies for emission patterns and climatological transport pathways-account for 64% of predictive importance on average across zones, compared to 23% for meteorological variables, indicating that PM2.5 spatial structure is driven more by where emissions occur than by month-to-month weather variability. To verify that coordinates add genuine predictive value beyond spatial autocorrelation, a retrain ablation confirms that removing latitude and longitude collapses model performance across all zones (mean R2 drops from 0.367 to -0.099), while an IDW spatial baseline confirms that the ML model captures meteorological signal beyond simple proximity interpolation (+98% R2 improvement over IDW). Temporal validation (2019-2021 training, 2022-2023 testing) yields R2 = 0.544, confirming LOCO is the more demanding test. Ensemble stacking degrades performance relative to the zone-tuned model, providing evidence of feature-set saturation rather than model weakness. This reproducible, open-source framework offers a useful benchmark for reanalysis-based PM2.5 assessment, particularly in data-sparse regions where ground monitoring is limited.
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.