The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of statistical methods commonly used in predictive modelling
Abstract
Logistic Multiple Regression, Principal Component Regression and Classification and Regression Tree Analysis (CART), commonly used in ecological modelling using GIS, are compared with a relatively new statistical technique, Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS), to test their accuracy, reliability, implementation within GIS and ease of use. All were applied to the same two data sets, covering a wide range of conditions common in predictive modelling, namely geographical range, scale, nature of the predictors and sampling method. We ran two series of analyses to verify if model validation by an independent data set was required or cross‐validation on a learning data set sufficed. Results show that validation by independent data sets is needed. Model accuracy was evaluated using the area under Receiver Operating Characteristics curve (AUC). This measure was used because it summarizes performance across all possible thresholds, and is independent of balance between classes. MARS and Regression Tree Analysis achieved the best prediction success, although the CART model was difficult to use for cartographic purposes due to the high model complexity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Multicollinearity: A tale of two nonparametric regressions
De Veaux, R. D., & Ungar, L. H. (1994) · Lecture Notes in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2660-4_40 · Cited by 118
Cited by
Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data
Elith*, J., H. Graham*, C., P. Anderson, R., Dudík, M., Ferrier, S., Guisan, A., J. Hijmans, R., Huettmann, F., R. Leathwick, J., Lehmann, A., et al. (2006) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · Cited by 9,088
Prasad, A. M., Iverson, L. R., & Liaw, A. (2006) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0054-1 · Cited by 1,987
Austin, M. (2007) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.07.005 · Cited by 1,504
Leathwick, J. R., Elith, J., & Hastie, T. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.022 · Cited by 451
Citizens as consumers: Profiling e-government services’ users in Egypt via data mining techniques
Mostafa, M. M., & El-Masry, A. A. (2013) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.03.007 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Muñoz, J., & Felicísimo, Á. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Vegetation Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-02-24
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 285-292
- ISSN
- 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
- 1654-1103
- OpenAlex
- W2121013825
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of statistical methods commonly used in predictive modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02263.x
- The paper
- Muñoz, J., & Felicísimo, Á. M. (2004). Comparison of statistical methods commonly used in predictive modelling. Journal of Vegetation Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02263.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.