ArticleJournal of big data2023
Framework for multi-criteria assessment of classification models for the purposes of credit scoring.
Article in Journal of big data, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main dilemma in the case of classification tasks is to find-from among many combinations of methods, techniques and values of their parameters-such a structure of the classifier model that could achieve the best accuracy and efficiency. The aim of the article is to develop and practically verify a framework for multi-criteria evaluation of classification models for the purposes of credit scoring. The framework is based on the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method called PROSA (PROMETHEE for Sustainability Analysis), which brought added value to the modelling process, allowing the assessment of classifiers to include the consistency of the results obtained on the training set and the validation set, and the consistency of the classification results obtained for the data acquired in different time periods. The study considered two aggregation scenarios of TSC (Time periods, Sub-criteria, Criteria) and SCT (Sub-criteria, Criteria, Time periods), in which very similar results were obtained for the evaluation of classification models. The leading positions in the ranking were taken by borrower classification models using logistic regression and a small number of predictive variables. The obtained rankings were compared to the assessments of the expert team, which turned out to be very similar.
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.