ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of potential occurrence of historical objects with defensive function in Slovakia using machine learning approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this article, we aim at the prediction of possible locations of already defunct historical objects with a defensive function (HODFs) in Slovakia, which have not been found and documented so far, using three machine learning methods. Specifically, we used the support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, and random forest algorithms, which were trained based on the following five factors influencing the possible occurrence of HODFs: elevation, distance from a river, distance from a settlement, lithological rock type, and type of representative geoecosystems. Training and testing datasets were based on a database of already documented 605 HODFs, which were divided into 70% of training samples and 30% of testing samples. All of the three models reached the AUC-ROC value over 0.74 based on the testing dataset. The best performance was recorded by the random forest predictive model with the AUC-ROC value equal to 0.79. The results of the random forest model were also validated with the recently documented HODFs via the archeological research.
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.