ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of machine learning models for malaria detection using validated synthetic data: a cost-sensitive approach with clinical domain knowledge integration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early malaria risk screening in Nigerian minors using AutoML and cluster-based analysis of non-clinical survey data.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
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
Malaria remains a critical global health challenge requiring innovative diagnostic approaches. Machine learning offers promising solutions for automated detection, but systematic algorithm comparison using clinically validated data remains limited. We systematically compared five machine learning models-Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and Enhanced Bayesian Logistic Regression-for malaria detection using a rigorously validated synthetic dataset ([Formula: see text]) representing Sub-Saharan African epidemiological conditions. The dataset achieved 87% representativeness against published clinical benchmarks. Cost-sensitive threshold optimization prioritized clinical sensitivity ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Performance evaluation employed comprehensive metrics with bootstrap confidence intervals, statistical significance testing, and clinical cost analysis. Five machine learning algorithms were evaluated using comprehensive statistical validation including bootstrap confidence intervals and significance testing. XGBoost achieved optimal performance with highest [Formula: see text] (0.956, 95% [Formula: see text]: 0.952-0.961) and competitive clinical cost (5,496), representing 2.8% improvement over Random Forest. Enhanced Bayesian Logistic Regression incorporating clinical domain knowledge achieved comparable performance ([Formula: see text]: 0.954, 95% [Formula: see text]: 0.950-0.959) with interpretable clinical coefficients. McNemar's test revealed statistically significant classification differences between XGBoost and Random Forest ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), while Friedman test indicated no significant overall ranking differences across models ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Complete analysis pipeline with 2-step reproduction process and synthetic datasets are publicly available for independent validation and collaborative research extension. XGBoost demonstrates optimal balance of accuracy and cost-effectiveness for malaria screening applications. The systematic validation framework and cost-sensitive optimization provide practical guidance for clinical implementation. While synthetic data enables controlled algorithm comparison, real-world clinical validation remains essential before deployment.
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.