Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42907476›Full record

ArticleScientific data2026

Global forest typology at 10-meter resolution for forest and land-use monitoring.

Maxim Neumann, Anton Raichuk, Peter Potapov, Myroslava Lesiv, Matthew Overlan, Mélanie Rey, Ravindran Rajakumar, Michelangelo Conserva, Radost Stanimirova, Michelle J Sims and 11 more

Abstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Maxim Neumann *Google DeepMind, Zurich, Switzerland. maximneumann@google.com.
Anton Raichuk *Google DeepMind, Zurich, Switzerland.
Peter PotapovWorld Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Myroslava LesivInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Matthew OverlanGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.
Mélanie ReyGoogle DeepMind, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ravindran RajakumarGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.
Michelangelo ConservaGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Radost StanimirovaWorld Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Michelle J SimsWorld Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Sarah CarterWorld Resources Institute, The Hague, Netherlands.
Elizabeth GoldmanWorld Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Yuchang JiangUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7293-1304
Linus ScheibenreifETH, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ivelina GeorgievaInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Maria ShchepashchenkoInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Steffen FritzInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Nicholas ClintonGoogle, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Charlotte StantonGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8995-318X
Dan MorrisGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA, USA.
Drew PurvesGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distinguishing forest types-primary, naturally regenerating, planted, and plantation forests-from agricultural tree crops and other land uses is essential for carbon accounting, biodiversity assessment, conservation planning, and supply-chain regulation. However, no existing global dataset resolves this typology at high spatial resolution. We present the Forest Typology (ForTy) v1 dataset, a global 10-meter resolution baseline map for 2020 that classifies all land into six categories aligned with FAO and EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) definitions: Primary Forest, Naturally Regenerating Forest, Planted Forest, Plantation Forest, Tree Crops and Agroforestry, and Other Land. A cascaded deep learning pipeline, trained on 1.7 million globally distributed samples, generates per-class relative confidence maps from geospatial satellite embeddings by combining weakly supervised learning with active learning. Independent validation against 8,190 expert-labeled stratified random sites yields an overall accuracy of 90.2% for the six-class scheme, 94.8% for natural forest classification, and 95.5% for forest/non-forest classification.

Indexed as

ForestsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesCrops, AgriculturalDeep LearningEnvironmental MonitoringTrees

Identifiers

PMID42907476
PMCPMC13686961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.