ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of white blood cell count during exercise: a comparison between standalone and hybrid intelligent algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Regression analysis to calculate the time point of ROSC-A feasibility study].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Article
- Goals, cheers, and gamma-GT: Do football tournaments affect laboratory parameters?Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decades of research in exercise immunology have demonstrated the profound impact of exercise on the immune response, influencing an individual's disease susceptibility. Accurate prediction of white blood cells (WBCs) count during exercise can help to design effective training programs to maintain optimal the immune system function and prevent its suppression. In this regard, this study aimed to develop an easy-to-use and efficient modelling tool for predicting WBCs count during exercise. To achieve this goal, the predictive power of a range of machine-learning algorithms, including six standalone models (M5 prime (M5P), random forest (RF), alternating model trees (AMT), reduced error pruning tree (REPT), locally weighted learning (LWL), and support vector regression (SVR)) were assessed along with six types of hybrid models trained with a bagging (BA) algorithm (BA-M5P, BA-RF, BA-AMT, BA-REPT, BA-LWL, and BA- SVR). A comprehensive database was constructed from 200 eligible people. The models employed post-exercise training WBCs counts as the output parameter and seven WBCs-influencing factors, including intensity and duration of exercise, pre-exercise training WBCs counts, age, body fat percentage, maximal aerobic capacity, and muscle mass as input parameters. Comparing the prediction results of the models to the observed WBCs using standard statistics indicated that the BA-M5P model had the greatest potential to produce a robust prediction of the number of lymphocytes, neutrophils, monocytes, and WBC compared to other models. Moreover, pre-exercise training WBCs counts, intensity and duration of exercise and body fat percentage were the most important features in predicting WBCs counts. These findings hold significant implications for the advancement of exercise immunology and the promotion of public health.
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.