ArticlePloS one2025
Bias-corrected-based collaborative filtering recommendation (Bias-Corr-CF).
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of the collaborative filtering problem is to find accurate and efficient mappings from previously rated data at items of the users. Improving item-based collaborative filtering (IBCF) and user-based collaborative filtering (UBCF) involves understanding the mathematics of distance measures and finding the right balance between calculating similarity and providing recommendations very accurate. However, the popular distance measures for recommendation models only focus on measuring pairwise rating values between one user and another, or between one item and another. In this article, the authors have proposed a new recommendation model, which consists of building a collaborative filtering model with the bias-corrected distance correlation statistic. The correlation method focuses on measuring the rating values of one object with all ratings of the other object; the Bias-Corrected Distance Correlation (BCDCOR) provides an improved estimate of the distance correlation; it corrects the bias present in the original distance correlation. Experimental results are developed on the Jester5k dataset, with two popular evaluation methods for the recommendation models, namely precision and recall values. The experimental results show that with the Bias-corrected-based recommendation model between users and users, the Precision and Recall values of the proposed model are higher than those of the compared collaborative filtering recommendation systems.
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.