ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of university students' earthquake coping strategies using artificial intelligence methods.
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 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 hybrid approach based on deep feature extraction and machine learning classification for structural damage detection in concrete structures.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of YOLOv8 and YOLO11 for Image-Based Classification of Sugar Beet Seed Treatment Levels.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A multidimensional analysis of the 21Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of attitudes of university students towards artificial intelligence using data mining methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-Time and Fully Automated Robotic Stacking System with Deep Learning-Based Visual Perception.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Earthquakes are one of the most destructive natural disasters that pose a serious threat to human life and infrastructure worldwide. The aim of this study is to evaluate the coping strategies of adult individuals in Turkey regarding earthquake stress using artificial intelligence-based methods. The data was collected from 858 university students living in Turkey during January, February, and March 2024. A dataset was created using the 'Coping Scale for Earthquake Stress.' Prediction models were established using artificial intelligence algorithms such as Logistic Regression (LR), Bagging, and Random Forest (RF) based on information from 24 variables. The cross-validation method was applied during model training. The Logistic Regression algorithm achieved the highest accuracy rate of 98.60%, while the Bagging algorithm demonstrated the lowest performance with an accuracy rate of 79.95%. The Random Forest algorithm showed moderate performance with an accuracy rate of 85.89%. The findings provide important insights into the coping strategies of the community regarding earthquake stress. This study is expected to contribute significantly to areas such as disaster management, psychology, public health, and community resilience.
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.