↓ Skip to main content

Cyanotoxin level prediction in a reservoir using gradient boosted regression trees: a case study

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Cyanotoxin level prediction in a reservoir using gradient boosted regression trees: a case study
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11356-018-2219-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulino José García Nieto, Esperanza García-Gonzalo, Fernando Sánchez Lasheras, José Ramón Alonso Fernández, Cristina Díaz Muñiz, Francisco Javier de Cos Juez

Abstract

Cyanotoxins are a type of cyanobacteria that is poisonous and poses a health threat in waters that could be used for drinking or recreational purposes. Thus, it is necessary to predict their presence to avoid risks. This paper presents a nonparametric machine learning approach using a gradient boosted regression tree model (GBRT) for prediction of cyanotoxin contents from cyanobacterial concentrations determined experimentally in a reservoir located in the north of Spain. GBRT models seek and obtain good predictions in highly nonlinear problems, like the one treated here, where the studied variable presents low concentrations of cyanotoxins mixed with high concentration peaks. Two types of results have been obtained: firstly, the model allows the ranking or the dependent variables according to its importance in the model. Finally, the high performance and the simplicity of the model make the gradient boosted tree method attractive compared to conventional forecasting techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#3,738
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,931
of 334,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#89
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.