ArticleHeliyon2024
Data mining of accidents in Spanish underground mines in the period 2003-2021 caused by a collision with a moving object.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Underground mining is currently one of the Spanish economic sectors with the worst accident rates. Besides, the most frequent type of accident, and with the most serious consequences, is the one in which the injured worker is hit by a moving object. For this reason, this study focuses on the analysis of this type of accident, divided into 3 subgroups to better understand the behavioural patterns. Data mining techniques were applied using the Apriori algorithm to extract as much information as possible about the genesis of these accidents. Similarly, each subset of accidents was processed in two different ways to improve the data analysis, depending on the causal variables used in each case, so that a study of six different scenarios was carried out. The five best association rules or behaviour patterns for each of the six scenarios are shown as a function of their frequency for each rule with 1-4 causal variables.
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.