ArticleBiomedical engineering online2023
Which are best for successful aging prediction? Bagging, boosting, or simple machine learning algorithms?
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative performance of bagging and boosting ensemble models for predicting lumpy skin disease with multiclass-imbalanced data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparing the effect of pre-anesthesia clonidine and tranexamic acid on intraoperative bleeding volume in rhinoplasty: a machine learning approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A novel explainable machine learning-based healthy ageing scale.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- A comparative study of explainable ensemble learning and logistic regression for predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe worldwide society is currently facing an epidemiological shift due to the significant improvement in life expectancy and increase in the elderly population. This shift requires the public and scientific community to highlight successful aging (SA), as an indicator representing the quality of elderly people's health. SA is a subjective, complex, and multidimensional concept; thus, its meaning or measuring is a difficult task. This study seeks to identify the most affecting factors on SA and fed them as input variables for constructing predictive models using machine learning (ML) algorithms.
methodsData from 1465 adults aged ≥ 60 years who were referred to health centers in Abadan city (Iran) between 2021 and 2022 were collected by interview. First, binary logistic regression (BLR) was used to identify the main factors influencing SA. Second, eight ML algorithms, including adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), bootstrap aggregating (Bagging), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XG-Boost), random forest (RF), J-48, multilayered perceptron (MLP), Naïve Bayes (NB), and support vector machine (SVM), were trained to predict SA. Finally, their performance was evaluated using metrics derived from the confusion matrix to determine the best model.
resultsThe experimental results showed that 44 factors had a meaningful relationship with SA as the output class. In total, the RF algorithm with sensitivity = 0.95 ± 0.01, specificity = 0.94 ± 0.01, accuracy = 0.94 ± 0.005, and F-score = 0.94 ± 0.003 yielded the best performance for predicting SA.
conclusionsCompared to other selected ML methods, the effectiveness of the RF as a bagging algorithm in predicting SA was significantly better. Our developed prediction models can provide, gerontologists, geriatric nursing, healthcare administrators, and policymakers with a reliable and responsive tool to improve elderly outcomes.
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.