Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37303478›Full record

ArticleJournal of big data2023

Framework for multi-criteria assessment of classification models for the purposes of credit scoring.

Paweł Ziemba, Jarosław Becker, Aneta Becker, Aleksandra Radomska-Zalas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

4 authors.

Paweł ZiembaInstitute of Management, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland.
Jarosław BeckerFaculty of Technology, The Jacob of Paradies University, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland.
Aneta BeckerFaculty of Economics, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin, Poland.
Aleksandra Radomska-ZalasFaculty of Technology, The Jacob of Paradies University, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Classification algorithmsCredit scoringModel evaluationMulti-criteria decision makingPROMETHEE IIPROSA

Identifiers

PMID37303478
PMCPMC10237068

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.