ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2022
Prediction of Hepatitis disease using ensemble learning methods.
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning Approaches for the Prediction of Hepatitis B and C Seropositivity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hepatitis is one of the chronic diseases that can lead to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, which cause deaths around the world. Hence, early diagnosis is needed to control, treat, and reduce the effects of this disease. This study's main goal was to compare the performance of traditional and ensemble learning methods for predicting hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV). Also, important variables related to HBV and HCV were identified. Methods: This case-control study was conducted in Hamadan Province, in the west of Iran, between 2014 to 2019. It included 534 subjects (267 cases and 267 controls). The bagging, random forest, AdaBoost, and logistic regression were used for predicting HBV and HCV. These methods' performance was evaluated using accuracy. Results: According to the results, the accuracy of bagging, random forest, Adaboost, and logistic regression were 0.65 ± 0.03, 0.66 ± 0.03, 0.62 ± 0.04, and 0.64 ± 0.03, respectively, with random forest showing the best performance for predicting HBV. This method showed that ALT was the most important variable for predicting HBV. The the accuracy of random forest was 0.77±0.03 for predicting HCV. Also, the random forest showed that the order of variable importance has belonged to AST, ALT, and age for predicting HCV. Conclusion: This study showed that random forest performed better than other methods for predicting HBV and HCV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.