ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2021
Improving classification based on physical surface tension-neural net for the prediction of psychosocial-risk level in public school teachers.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving classification based on physical surface tension-neural net for the prediction of psychosocial-risk level in public school teachers.PeerJ. Computer science · 2021Article
- Psychosocial risks at work: integrative review and conceptual perspectives.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychosocial risks, also present in educational processes, are stress factors particularly critical in state-schools, affecting the efficacy, stress, and job satisfaction of the teachers. This study proposes an intelligent algorithm to improve the prediction of psychosocial risk, as a tool for the generation of health and risk prevention assistance programs.
methodsThe proposed approach, Physical Surface Tension-Neural Net (PST-NN), applied the theory of superficial tension in liquids to an artificial neural network (ANN), in order to model four risk levels (low, medium, high and very high psychosocial risk). The model was trained and tested using the results of tests for measurement of the psychosocial risk levels of 5,443 teachers. Psychosocial, and also physiological and musculoskeletal symptoms, factors were included as inputs of the model. The classification efficiency of the PST-NN approach was evaluated by using the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and ROC curve metrics, and compared against other techniques as the Decision Tree model, Naïve Bayes, ANN, Support Vector Machines, Robust Linear Regression and the Logistic Regression Model.
resultsThe modification of the ANN model, by the adaptation of a layer that includes concepts related to the theory of physical surface tension, improved the separation of the subjects according to the risk level group, as a function of the mass and perimeter outputs. Indeed, the PST-NN model showed better performance to classify psychosocial risk level on state-school teachers than the linear, probabilistic and logistic models included in this study, obtaining an average accuracy value of 97.31%.
conclusionsThe introduction of physical models, such as the physical surface tension, can improve the classification performance of ANN. Particularly, the PST-NN model can be used to predict and classify psychosocial risk levels among state-school teachers at work. This model could help to early identification of psychosocial risk and to the development of programs to prevent it.
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.