Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28878112›Full record

ArticleJournal of research in health sciences2017

Artificial Neural Network to Modeling Zero-inflated Count Data: Application to Predicting Number of Return to Blood Donation.

Shima Haghani, Morteza Sedehi, Soleiman Kheiri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research in health sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shima HaghaniDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.
Morteza SedehiDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran. sedehi1356@gmail.com.
Soleiman KheiriDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional statistical models often are based on certain presuppositions and limitations that may not presence in actual data and lead to turbulence in estimation or prediction. In these situations, artificial neural networks (ANNs) could be suitable alternative rather than classical statistical methods. STUDY

designA prospective cohort study.

methodsThe study was conducted in Shahrekord Blood Transfusion Center, Shahrekord, central Iran, on blood donors from 2008-2009. The accuracy of the proposed model to prediction of number of return to blood donations was compared with classical statistical models. A number of 864 donors who had a first-time successful donation were followed for five years. Number of return for blood donation was considered as response variable. Poisson regression (PR), negative binomial regression (NBR), zero-inflated Poisson regression (ZIPR) and zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINBR) as well as ANN model were fitted to data. MSE criterion was used to compare models. To fitting the models, STATISTICA 10 and, R 3.2.2 was used

resultsThe MSE of PR, NBR, ZIPR, ZINBR and ANN models was obtained 2.71, 1.01, 1.54, 0.094 and 0.056 for the training and 4.05, 9.89, 3.99, 2.53 and 0.27 for the test data, respectively.

conclusionsThe ANN model had the least MSE in both training, and test data set and has a better performance than classic models. ANN could be a suitable alternative for modeling such data because of fewer restrictions.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalModels, StatisticalSocial BehaviorBlood DonorsHumansIranNeural Networks, ComputerPoisson DistributionProspective StudiesRegression AnalysisArtificial neural networkBlood donationCount regression ModelsHZero-inflated count data

Identifiers

PMID28878112
PMCPMC7189957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.