ArticlePloS one2021
Identifying intentional injuries among children and adolescents based on Machine Learning.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompared to other studies, the injury monitoring of Chinese children and adolescents has captured a low level of intentional injuries on account of self-harm/suicide and violent attacks. Intentional injuries in children and adolescents have not been apparent from the data. It is possible that there has been a misclassification of existing intentional injuries, and there is a lack of research literature on the misclassification of intentional injuries. This study aimed to discuss the feasibility of discriminating the intention of injury based on Machine Learning (ML) modelling and provided ideas for understanding whether there was a misclassification of intentional injuries.
methodsInformation entropy was used to determine the correlation between variables and the intention of injury, and Naive Bayes (NB), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Adaboost algorithms and Deep Neural Networks (DNN) were used to create an intention of injury discrimination model. The models were compared by comprehensively testing the discrimination effect to determine stability and consistency.
resultsFor the area under the ROC curve with different intentions of injuries, the NB model was 0.891, 0.880, and 0.897, respectively; the DT model was 0.870, 0.803, and 0.871, respectively; the RF model was 0.850, 0.809, and 0.845, respectively; the Adaboost model was 0.914, 0.846, and 0.914, respectively; the DNN model was 0.927, 0.835, and 0.934, respectively. In a comprehensive comparison of the five models, DNN and Adaboost models had higher values for the determination of the intention of injury. A discrimination of cases with unclear intentions of injury showed that on average, unintentional injuries, violent attacks, and self-harm/suicides accounted for 86.57%, 6.81%, and 6.62%, respectively.
conclusionIt was feasible to use the ML algorithm to determine the injury intention of children and adolescents. The research suggested that the DNN and Adaboost models had higher values for the determination of the intention of injury. This study could build a foundation for transforming the model into a tool for rapid diagnosis and excavating potential intentional injuries of children and adolescents by widely collecting the influencing factors, extracting the influence variables characteristically, reducing the complexity and improving the performance of the models in the future.
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.