Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37416637›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Comparison of machine learning algorithms to predict intentional and unintentional poisoning risk factors.

Yousef Veisani, Hojjat Sayyadi, Ali Sahebi, Ghobad Moradi, Fathola Mohamadian, Ali Delpisheh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in clinical toxicology in Africa: Emerging applications and barriers.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Yousef VeisaniPsychosocial Injuries Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Hojjat SayyadiNon-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Ali SahebiNon-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Ghobad MoradiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Fathola MohamadianDepartment of Psychology, Psychosocial Injuries Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Ali DelpishehDepartment of Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention Research Centre Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A major share of poisoning cases are perpetrated intentionally, but this varies depending on different geographical regions, age spectrums, and gender distribution. The present study was conducted to determine the most important factors affecting intentional and unintentional poisonings using machine learning algorithms. Materials and methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted on 658 people hospitalized due to poisoning. The enrollment and follow-up of patients were carried out during 2020-2021. The data obtained from patients' files and during follow-up were recorded by a physician and entered into SPSS software by the registration expert. Different machine learning algorithms were used to analyze the data. Fit models of the training data were assessed by determining accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, and the area under the rock curve (AUC). Finally, after analyzing the models, the data of the Gradient boosted trees (GBT) model were finalized. Results: The GBT model rendered the highest accuracy (91.5 ± 3.4) among other models tested. Also, the GBT model had significantly higher sensitivity (94.7 ± 1.7) and specificity (93.2 ± 4.1) compared to other models (P < 0.001). The most prominent predictors based on the GBT model were the route of poison entry (weight = 0.583), place of residence (weight = 0.137), history of psychiatric diseases (weight = 0.087), and age (weight = 0.085). Conclusion: The present study suggests the GBT model as a reliable predictor model for identifying the factors affecting intentional and unintentional poisoning. According to our results, the determinants of intentional poisoning included the route of poison entry into the body, place of residence, and the heart rate. The most important predictors of unintentional poisoning were age, exposure to benzodiazepine, creatinine levels, and occupation.

Indexed as

GBTIntentional poisoningMachine learningUnintentional poisoning

Identifiers

PMID37416637
PMCPMC10320267

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.