34 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Effect of early administration of tetracosactide on mortality and host response in critically ill patients requiring rescue surgery: a sensitivity analysis of the STOPSHOCK phase 3 randomized controlled trial G. Noera et al. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40779-024-00555-2
2. Parameterization toolbox for a physical–biogeochemical model compatible with FABM – a case study: the coupled 1D GOTM–ECOSMO E2E for the Sylt–Rømø Bight, North Sea H. Nguyen et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2961-2025
3. Process Importance Identification for the SPAC System Under Different Water Conditions: A Case Study of Winter Wheat L. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15030753
4. Guidance on evaluating parametric model uncertainty at decision-relevant scales J. Smith et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2519-2022
5. Advancement of a Blended Hydrologic Model for Robust Model Performance R. Chlumsky et al. https://doi.org/10.1061/JHYEFF.HEENG-6246
6. Establishment of watershed ecological water requirements framework: A case study of the Lower Yellow River, China H. Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153205
7. Coupled effects of observation and parameter uncertainty on urban groundwater infrastructure decisions M. Mautner et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1319-2022
8. Broadleaf afforestation impacts on terrestrial hydrology insignificant compared to climate change in Great Britain M. Buechel et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024
9. A Robust Strategy to Account for Data Sampling Variability in the Development of Hydrological Models F. Zheng et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033703
10. A model-based policy analysis framework for social-ecological systems: Integrating uncertainty and participation in system dynamics modelling H. Amorocho-Daza et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110943
11. Sensitivity of the land surface hydrological cycle to human activities in China K. Luo & J. Moiwo https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.04.006
12. Process Interactions Can Change Process Ranking in a Coupled Complex System Under Process Model and Parametric Uncertainty J. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR029812
13. HIDYM: A high-resolution gross primary productivity and dynamic harvest index based crop yield mapper W. Yu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2024.114301
14. The PAVICS-Hydro platform: A virtual laboratory for hydroclimatic modelling and forecasting over North America R. Arsenault et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105808
15. Towards a sustainable community under climate change: A holistic approach integrating socio-economic factors, water balance, land use-land cover, and social norms M. Besharatifar et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2025.106691
16. The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America J. Mai et al. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28010-7
17. Development of an integrated global sensitivity analysis strategy for evaluating process sensitivities across single- and multi-models J. Yang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132014
18. RavenR v2.1.4: an open-source R package to support flexible hydrologic modelling R. Chlumsky et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7017-2022
19. Effectiveness and resilience of BMPs to watershed climate adaptation considering the uncertainty of hydrological model and GCMs B. Zhang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2024.100612
20. A new multi-model absolute difference-based sensitivity (MMADS) analysis method to screen non-influential processes under process model and parametric uncertainty J. Yang & M. Ye https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127609
21. Can continuous simulation be used as an alternative for flood regionalisation? A large sample example from Chile P. Acuña & A. Pizarro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130118
22. Comparative Assessment of Two Global Sensitivity Approaches Considering Model and Parameter Uncertainty H. Dai et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR036096
23. A Computationally Efficient Method for Estimating Multi‐Model Process Sensitivity Index H. Dai et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033263
24. Ensemble and stochastic conceptual data-driven approaches for improving streamflow simulations: Exploring different hydrological and data-driven models and a diagnostic tool D. Hah et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105474
25. Learning from hydrological models’ challenges: A case study from the Nelson basin model intercomparison project M. Ahmed et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129820
26. The Great Lakes Runoff Intercomparison Project Phase 4: the Great Lakes (GRIP-GL) J. Mai et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022
27. Towards reducing the high cost of parameter sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling: a regional parameter sensitivity analysis approach S. Larabi et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3241-2023
28. From empirical to physical constraints: Revisiting the structure of monthly water balance models with global evaluation Z. Ning et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.134916
29. Ten strategies towards successful calibration of environmental models J. Mai https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129414
30. The pie sharing problem: Unbiased sampling of N+1 summative weights J. Mai et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105282
31. A step toward global-scale applicability and transferability of flow duration curve studies: A flow duration curve review (2000–2020) C. Leong & Y. Yokoo https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126984
32. Facilitating sensitivity analysis of hydrological models through knowledge-driven configuration and distributed online model services P. Ma et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133406
33. Time to Update the Split‐Sample Approach in Hydrological Model Calibration H. Shen et al. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031523
34. Improving structure identifiability of hydrological processes by temporal sensitivity with a flexible modeling framework L. Zhou et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128843