ArticlePloS one2021
Chronic stress in practice assistants: An analytic approach comparing four machine learning classifiers with a standard logistic regression model.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Multidrug-Resistant Organisms Infections: Performance Evaluation and Interpretability Analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Explainable machine learning for predicting hospital employees' quality of life using psychosocial work environment data.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Early detection of occupational stress: Enhancing workplace safety with machine learning and large language models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Prospective virtual screening combined with bio-molecular simulation enabled identification of new inhibitors for the KRAS drug target.BMC chemistry · 2024Article
- Analysis and evaluation of explainable artificial intelligence on suicide risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Associations between COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Overtime, Perceived Chronic Stress and Burnout Symptoms in German General Practitioners and Practice Personnel-A Prospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Applying machine learning to explore the association between biological stress and near misses in emergency medicine residents.PloS one · 2022Article
- Posttraumatic stress disorder hyperarousal event detection using smartwatch physiological and activity data.PloS one · 2022Article
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
backgroundOccupational stress is associated with adverse outcomes for medical professionals and patients. In our cross-sectional study with 136 general practices, 26.4% of 550 practice assistants showed high chronic stress. As machine learning strategies offer the opportunity to improve understanding of chronic stress by exploiting complex interactions between variables, we used data from our previous study to derive the best analytic model for chronic stress: four common machine learning (ML) approaches are compared to a classical statistical procedure.
methodsWe applied four machine learning classifiers (random forest, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors', and artificial neural network) and logistic regression as standard approach to analyze factors contributing to chronic stress in practice assistants. Chronic stress had been measured by the standardized, self-administered TICS-SSCS questionnaire. The performance of these models was compared in terms of predictive accuracy based on the 'operating area under the curve' (AUC), sensitivity, and positive predictive value.
findingsCompared to the standard logistic regression model (AUC 0.636, 95% CI 0.490-0.674), all machine learning models improved prediction: random forest +20.8% (AUC 0.844, 95% CI 0.684-0.843), artificial neural network +12.4% (AUC 0.760, 95% CI 0.605-0.777), support vector machine +15.1% (AUC 0.787, 95% CI 0.634-0.802), and K-nearest neighbours +7.1% (AUC 0.707, 95% CI 0.556-0.735). As best prediction model, random forest showed a sensitivity of 99% and a positive predictive value of 79%. Using the variable frequencies at the decision nodes of the random forest model, the following five work characteristics influence chronic stress: too much work, high demand to concentrate, time pressure, complicated tasks, and insufficient support by practice leaders.
conclusionsRegarding chronic stress prediction, machine learning classifiers, especially random forest, provided more accurate prediction compared to classical logistic regression. Interventions to reduce chronic stress in practice personnel should primarily address the identified workplace characteristics.
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.