ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
A simplified approach for efficiency analysis of machine learning algorithms.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficiency of machine learning (ML) algorithms plays a critical role in their deployment across various applications, particularly those with resource constraints or real-time requirements. This article presents a comprehensive framework for evaluating ML algorithm efficiency by incorporating metrics, such as training time, prediction time, memory usage, and computational resource utilization. The proposed methodology involves a multistep process: collecting raw metrics, normalizing them, applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine weights, and computing a composite efficiency score. We applied this framework to two distinct datasets: medical image data and agricultural crop prediction data. The results demonstrate that our approach effectively differentiates algorithm performance based on the specific demands of each application. For medical image analysis, the framework highlights strengths in robustness and adaptability, whereas for agricultural crop prediction, it emphasizes scalability and resource management. This study provides valuable insights into optimizing ML algorithms, and offers a versatile tool for practitioners to assess and enhance algorithmic efficiency across diverse domains.
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.