样本比例和大小对随机森林模型预测蜗牛生境潜在分布性能的影响。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Geospatial Health Pub Date : 2023-07-03 DOI:10.4081/gh.2023.1151
Yuanhua Liu, Jun Zhang, Michael P Ward, Wei Tu, Lili Yu, Jin Shi, Yi Hu, Fenghua Gao, Zhiguo Cao, Zhijie Zhang
{"title":"样本比例和大小对随机森林模型预测蜗牛生境潜在分布性能的影响。","authors":"Yuanhua Liu,&nbsp;Jun Zhang,&nbsp;Michael P Ward,&nbsp;Wei Tu,&nbsp;Lili Yu,&nbsp;Jin Shi,&nbsp;Yi Hu,&nbsp;Fenghua Gao,&nbsp;Zhiguo Cao,&nbsp;Zhijie Zhang","doi":"10.4081/gh.2023.1151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few studies have considered the impacts of sample size and sample ratio of presence and absence points on the results of random forest (RF) testing. We applied this technique for the prediction of the spatial distribution of snail habitats based on a total of 15,000 sample points (5,000 presence samples and 10,000 control points). RF models were built using seven different sample ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1) and the optimal ratio was identified via the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic. The impact of sample size was compared by RF models under the optimal ratio and the optimal sample size. When the sample size was small, the sampling ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 were significantly better than the sample ratios of 4:1 and 3:1 at all four levels of sample sizes (p<0.01) and there was no significant difference among the ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 (p>0.05). The sample ratio of 1:2 appeared to be optimal for a relatively large sample size with the lowest quartile deviation. In addition, increasing the sample size produced a higher AUC and a smaller slope and the most suitable sample size found in this study was 2400 (AUC=0.96). This study provides a feasible idea to select an appropriate sample size and sample ratio for ecological niche modelling (ENM) and also provides a scientific basis for the selection of samples to accurately identify and predict snail habitat distributions.</p>","PeriodicalId":56260,"journal":{"name":"Geospatial Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts of sample ratio and size on the performance of random forest model to predict the potential distribution of snail habitats.\",\"authors\":\"Yuanhua Liu,&nbsp;Jun Zhang,&nbsp;Michael P Ward,&nbsp;Wei Tu,&nbsp;Lili Yu,&nbsp;Jin Shi,&nbsp;Yi Hu,&nbsp;Fenghua Gao,&nbsp;Zhiguo Cao,&nbsp;Zhijie Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/gh.2023.1151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Few studies have considered the impacts of sample size and sample ratio of presence and absence points on the results of random forest (RF) testing. We applied this technique for the prediction of the spatial distribution of snail habitats based on a total of 15,000 sample points (5,000 presence samples and 10,000 control points). RF models were built using seven different sample ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1) and the optimal ratio was identified via the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic. The impact of sample size was compared by RF models under the optimal ratio and the optimal sample size. When the sample size was small, the sampling ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 were significantly better than the sample ratios of 4:1 and 3:1 at all four levels of sample sizes (p<0.01) and there was no significant difference among the ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 (p>0.05). The sample ratio of 1:2 appeared to be optimal for a relatively large sample size with the lowest quartile deviation. In addition, increasing the sample size produced a higher AUC and a smaller slope and the most suitable sample size found in this study was 2400 (AUC=0.96). This study provides a feasible idea to select an appropriate sample size and sample ratio for ecological niche modelling (ENM) and also provides a scientific basis for the selection of samples to accurately identify and predict snail habitat distributions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geospatial Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geospatial Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2023.1151\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geospatial Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/gh.2023.1151","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

很少有研究考虑存在点和不存在点的样本量和样本比例对随机森林检验结果的影响。我们将该技术应用于基于15000个样本点(5000个存在样本和10000个控制点)的蜗牛栖息地空间分布预测。采用1∶1、1∶2、1∶3、1∶4、2∶1、3∶1和4∶1 7种不同的采样比例建立射频模型,并通过曲线下面积(AUC)统计确定最佳比例。在最优比例和最优样本量下,采用射频模型比较了样本量的影响。样本量较小时,在4个样本量水平上,1:1、1:2、1:3的抽样比均显著优于4:1、3:1的抽样比(p0.05)。对于相对较大的样本量和最低的四分位数偏差,1:2的样本比例似乎是最佳的。随着样本量的增加,AUC增大,斜率减小,本研究发现最合适的样本量为2400 (AUC=0.96)。本研究为生态位建模(ENM)选择合适的样本量和样本比例提供了可行思路,也为准确识别和预测蜗牛栖息地分布提供了样本选择的科学依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impacts of sample ratio and size on the performance of random forest model to predict the potential distribution of snail habitats.

Few studies have considered the impacts of sample size and sample ratio of presence and absence points on the results of random forest (RF) testing. We applied this technique for the prediction of the spatial distribution of snail habitats based on a total of 15,000 sample points (5,000 presence samples and 10,000 control points). RF models were built using seven different sample ratios (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1) and the optimal ratio was identified via the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic. The impact of sample size was compared by RF models under the optimal ratio and the optimal sample size. When the sample size was small, the sampling ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 were significantly better than the sample ratios of 4:1 and 3:1 at all four levels of sample sizes (p<0.01) and there was no significant difference among the ratios of 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 (p>0.05). The sample ratio of 1:2 appeared to be optimal for a relatively large sample size with the lowest quartile deviation. In addition, increasing the sample size produced a higher AUC and a smaller slope and the most suitable sample size found in this study was 2400 (AUC=0.96). This study provides a feasible idea to select an appropriate sample size and sample ratio for ecological niche modelling (ENM) and also provides a scientific basis for the selection of samples to accurately identify and predict snail habitat distributions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geospatial Health
Geospatial Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The focus of the journal is on all aspects of the application of geographical information systems, remote sensing, global positioning systems, spatial statistics and other geospatial tools in human and veterinary health. The journal publishes two issues per year.
期刊最新文献
Childhood stunting in Indonesia: assessing the performance of Bayesian spatial conditional autoregressive models. A two-stage location model covering COVID-19 sampling, transport and DNA diagnosis: design of a national scheme for infection control. The distribution of cardiovascular diseases in Tanzania: a spatio-temporal investigation. Performance of a negative binomial-GLM in spatial scan statistic: a case study of low-birth weights in Pakistan. Tuberculosis in Aceh Province, Indonesia: a spatial epidemiological study covering the period 2019-2021.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1