ArticlePloS one2024
Applicability of machine learning algorithm to predict the therapeutic intervention success in Brazilian smokers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning and public health policy evaluation: research dynamics and prospects for challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smoking cessation is an important public health policy worldwide. However, as far as we know, there is a lack of screening of variables related to the success of therapeutic intervention (STI) in Brazilian smokers by machine learning (ML) algorithms. To address this gap in the literature, we evaluated the ability of eight ML algorithms to correctly predict the STI in Brazilian smokers who were treated at a smoking cessation program in Brazil between 2006 and 2017. The dataset was composed of 12 variables and the efficacies of the algorithms were measured by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We plotted a decision tree flowchart and also measured the odds ratio (OR) between each independent variable and the outcome, and the importance of the variable for the best model based on PPV. The mean global values for the metrics described above were, respectively, 0.675±0.028, 0.803±0.078, 0.485±0.146, 0.705±0.035 and 0.680±0.033. Supporting vector machines performed the best algorithm with a PPV of 0.726±0.031. Smoking cessation drug use was the roof of decision tree with OR of 4.42 and importance of variable of 100.00. Increase in the number of relapses also promoted a positive outcome, while higher consumption of cigarettes resulted in the opposite. In summary, the best model predicted 72.6% of positive outcomes correctly. Smoking cessation drug use and higher number of relapses contributed to quit smoking, while higher consumption of cigarettes showed the opposite effect. There are important strategies to reduce the number of smokers and increase STI by increasing services and drug treatment for smokers.
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.