Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39553697›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Advancing financial resilience: A systematic review of default prediction models and future directions in credit risk management.

Jahanzaib Alvi, Imtiaz Arif, Kehkashan Nizam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jahanzaib AlviDepartment of Business Administration, IQRA University Karachi, Pakistan.
Imtiaz ArifDepartment of Business Administration, IQRA University Karachi, Pakistan.
Kehkashan NizamDepartment of Business Administration, IQRA University Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research presents a systematic review of a substantial body of high-quality research articles on Default Prediction Models published from 2015 to 2024. It is a comprehensive analysis of a DPM wide spectrum approaches including Textual Models, Systematic Review Studies, Hybrid Models, Intelligent Models and Statistical Models. The reason behind this study is rooted in the critical need to mitigate and understand the credit default risk that poses a significant threat to financial stability worldwide. By employing an evidence-based approach and methodological rigorously, this research critically evaluates the gaps, effectiveness and evolution in existing DPM methodologies. It is not only synthesized the current landscape of DPM study but also identified the direction for the future research, by offering novel insights and bridging theoretical gaps for enhancing the strategies of credit risk management. This study stands out by focusing on high citation research from top tier publishers, ensuring the quality and relevance of its analysis. The findings of this study have profound implications for stakeholders across the financial sector, including bankers, investors, regulatory bodies, and researchers. It aims to advance financial stability by providing a comprehensive overview of DPM advancements and pointing towards areas that require further exploration. By doing so, it contributes significantly to the development of more effective and sophisticated DPM strategies, thereby enhancing the robustness of financial institutions against potential defaults.

Indexed as

Credit risk managementDefault prediction models (DPM)Financial stabilityHybrid modeling approachesSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID39553697
PMCPMC11564005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.