ArticleProceedings. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics2014
APPLYING MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES IN DETECTING BACTERIAL VAGINOSIS.
Article in Proceedings. International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2014. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population-Level Predictive Variation in Machine Learning Diagnosis of Symptomatic Bacterial Vaginosis.npj women's health · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There are several diseases which arise because of changes in the microbial communities in the body. Scientists continue to conduct research in a quest to find the catalysts that provoke these changes in the naturally occurring microbiota. Bacterial Vaginosis (BV) is a disease that fits the above criteria. BV afflicts approximately 29% of women in child bearing age. Unfortunately, its causes are unknown. This paper seeks to uncover the most important features for diagnosis and in turn employ classification algorithms on those features. In order to fulfill our purpose, we conducted two experiments on the data. We isolated the clinical and medical features from the full set of raw data, we compared the accuracy, precision, recall and F-measure and time elapsed for each feature selection and classification grouping. We noticed that classification results were as good or better after performing feature selection although there was a wide range in the number of features produced from the feature selection process. After comparing the experiments, the algorithms performed best on the medical dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.