ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
A Predictive Model for Abnormal Bone Density in Male Underground Coal Mine Workers.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The dark and humid environment of underground coal mines had a detrimental effect on workers' skeletal health. Optimal risk prediction models can protect the skeletal health of coal miners by identifying those at risk of abnormal bone density as early as possible. A total of 3695 male underground workers who attended occupational health physical examination in a coal mine in Hebei, China, from July to August 2018 were included in this study. The predictor variables were identified through single-factor analysis and literature review. Three prediction models, Logistic Regression, CNN and XG Boost, were developed to evaluate the prediction performance. The training set results showed that the sensitivity of Logistic Regression, XG Boost and CNN models was 74.687, 82.058, 70.620, the specificity was 80.986, 89.448, 91.866, the F1 scores was 0.618, 0.919, 0.740, the Brier scores was 0.153, 0.040, 0.156, and the Calibration-in-the-large was 0.104, 0.020, 0.076, respectively, XG Boost outperformed the other two models. Similar results were obtained for the test set and validation set. A two-by-two comparison of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the three models showed that the XG Boost model had the best prediction performance. The XG Boost model had a high application value and outperformed the CNN and Logistic regression models in prediction.
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.