ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Predictive Modeling of COVID-19 Readmissions: Insights from Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This project employs artificial intelligence, including machine learning and deep learning, to assess COVID-19 readmission risk in Malaysia. It offers tools to mitigate healthcare resource strain and enhance patient outcomes. This study outlines a methodology for classifying COVID-19 readmissions. It starts with dataset description and pre-processing, while the data balancing was computed through Random Oversampling, Borderline SMOTE, and Adaptive Synthetic Sampling. Nine machine learning and ten deep learning techniques are applied, with five-fold cross-validation for evaluation. Optuna is used for hyperparameter selection, while the consistency in training hyperparameters is maintained. Evaluation metrics encompass accuracy, AUC, and training/inference times. Results were based on stratified five-fold cross-validation and different data-balancing methods. Notably, CatBoost consistently excelled in accuracy and AUC across all tables. Using ROS, CatBoost achieved the highest accuracy (0.9882 ± 0.0020) with an AUC of 1.0000 ± 0.0000. CatBoost maintained its superiority in BSMOTE and ADASYN as well. Deep learning approaches performed well, with SAINT leading in ROS and TabNet leading in BSMOTE and ADASYN. Decision Tree ensembles like Random Forest and XGBoost consistently showed strong performance.
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.