ArticleJournal of research in health sciences2017
Artificial Neural Network to Modeling Zero-inflated Count Data: Application to Predicting Number of Return to Blood Donation.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28878112PMC7189957What 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.