Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35617285›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Predicting the number of days in court cases using artificial intelligence.

Raphael Souza de Oliveira, Amilton Sales Reis, Erick Giovani Sperandio Nascimento

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raphael Souza de OliveiraTRT5 - Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region, Salvador, BA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7757-9175
Amilton Sales ReisSENAI CIMATEC - Manufacturing and Technology Integrated Campus, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
Erick Giovani Sperandio NascimentoSENAI CIMATEC - Manufacturing and Technology Integrated Campus, Salvador, BA, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2219-0290
Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Industrial · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brazilian legal system prescribes means of ensuring the prompt processing of court cases, such as the principle of reasonable process duration, the principle of celerity, procedural economy, and due legal process, with a view to optimizing procedural progress. In this context, one of the great challenges of the Brazilian judiciary is to predict the duration of legal cases based on information such as the judge, lawyers, parties involved, subject, monetary values of the case, starting date of the case, etc. Recently, there has been great interest in estimating the duration of various types of events using artificial intelligence algorithms to predict future behaviors based on time series. Thus, this study presents a proof-of-concept for creating and demonstrating a mechanism for predicting the amount of time, after the case is argued in court (time when a case is made available for the magistrate to make the decision), for the magistrate to issue a ruling. Cases from a Regional Labor Court were used as the database, with preparation data in two ways (original and discretization), to test seven machine learning techniques (i) Multilayer Perceptron (MLP); (ii) Gradient Boosting; (iii) Adaboost; (iv) Regressive Stacking; (v) Stacking Regressor with MLP; (vi) Regressive Stacking with Gradient Boosting; and (vii) Support Vector Regression (SVR), and determine which gives the best results. After executing the runs, it was identified that the adaboost technique excelled in the task of estimating the duration for issuing a ruling, as it had the best performance among the tested techniques. Thus, this study shows that it is possible to use machine learning techniques to perform this type of prediction, for the test data set, with an R2 of 0.819 and when transformed into levels, an accuracy of 84%.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID35617285
PMCPMC9135287
OpenAlexW4281561728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.