ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated detection of corruption reports in text via deep reinforcement learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We encounter issues with the huge number of useful features and the uneven target classes in the dataset when attempting to detect corruption reports in texts. We offer a novel approach that uses deep reinforcement learning techniques to identify corruption reports in texts in order to address these issues. Our suggested approach is broken down into four primary phases and integrates deep reinforcement learning, feature selection, and feature description techniques. In order to prepare the texts for the following steps, the first step is devoted to data preparation activities. The second step involves the feature extraction process, which is carried out employing three feature types: statistical features, which define the text's attributes in terms of frequency and statistics; Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) features, which assign weights to terms based on their occurrence in all texts and throughout the dataset; and Word2Vec characteristics, which not only describe the importance of features but also model the concurrency and communication traits of phrases. Following the combination of these three feature sets, an ideal subset is chosen and the dataset's dimensionality is decreased using the Singular Value Decomposition method. In the fourth and last stage, a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is utilized to carry out the detection process. The CNN model's configuration is modified using the Q-learning model. Experiments on identifying corruption reports in texts have revealed that our suggested approach has an average accuracy of 90.04% and F-measure of 0.9. These findings demonstrate the method's superior performance over other approaches already in use and validate its capacity to identify positive samples in texts pertaining to corruption with more accuracy.
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.