ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of machine learning algorithms to predict intentional and unintentional poisoning risk factors.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in clinical toxicology in Africa: Emerging applications and barriers.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Review
- Prediction of QTc Prolongation in Acute Poisoning with Atypical Antipsychotics Using Machine Learning Techniques: A Study from Poison Control Center.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2025Article
- Machine learning for predicting medical outcomes associated with acute lithium poisoning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.