ArticleDigital health
Machine learning prediction of coal workers' pneumoconiosis classification based on few-shot clinical data.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A synthetic oversampling-based customized ResNet51-Conv1D framework for early colorectal cancer prediction using structured clinical data from the PLCO screening trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Machine learning performance for a small dataset: random oversampling improves data imbalances and fairness.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Differential diagnosis of pneumoconiosis mass shadows and peripheral lung cancer using CT radiomics and the AdaBoost machine learning model.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Development of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for early-stage pneumoconiosis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A hybrid ensemble approach for diabetes prediction using consensus-based feature selection.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Aiming at the problems of the long incubation period, insufficient early diagnosis, and lack of treatment methods of coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), the objective of this study is to accurately predict the CWP staging based on machine learning (ML) methods and small-sample clinical data. Methods: The study included a comparative analysis of clinical data from 202 healthy individuals and 81 CWP patients at general Hospital of Xuzhou Mining Group. Firstly, various oversampling techniques were employed to address the issue of data imbalance. Subsequently, multiple ML methods were adopted for supervised learning and prediction of CWP staging. Then, an innovative feature selection method was proposed, integrating the importance and independence of clinical features to achieve high-precision predictions of CWP with a limited number of indicators. Results: The study identified ALB, PLT, and WBC as significant predictive factors for CWP through the Random Forest importance assessment method. Furthermore, in terms of integrated feature selection, when the weight ratio of feature importance to independence was 7:3 or 6:4, all ML models showed optimal performance, with the Random Forest (RF)-Adaboost model demonstrating the best predictive accuracy for CWP, reaching a F1 score of 0.8757. Conclusions: The integration of clinical biochemical examination data with ML models, especially the RF-Adaboost and support vector machine-particle swarm optimization models, effectively predicted the staging of CWP. The proposed integrated feature selection method, which considered both the importance and independence of features, significantly enhanced model performance, providing a valuable tool for early screening and diagnosis of CWP.
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.