ArticleDigital health
Artificial intelligence supported professional prediction of Physical Activity Counseling Practices Scale in health professionals with a machine learning algorithm.
Article in Digital health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate whether machine learning algorithms can predict healthcare professionals' occupations (physiotherapist, nurse, and dietitian) from PACPS (Physical Activity Counseling Practices Scale) item responses. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Konya (January-April 2025) with 242 participants. Five algorithms (Random Forest, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, and Naive Bayes) were trained and evaluated as follows: we first performed a stratified 70:30 split of the original dataset (train n = 126, test n = 116). Data augmentation was then applied only to the training set to address class imbalance, increasing it to n = 269, while the test set remained untouched (n = 116), preserving an effective ≈70:30 ratio. Performance was assessed on the independent test set (n = 116) using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Random Forest feature importance was examined to aid interpretability. Results: On the test set (n = 116), accuracies were 0.76 (Support Vector Machine), 0.82 (K-Nearest Neighbors), 0.71 (Naive Bayes), 0.75 (Random Forest), and 0.67 (Decision Tree). Random Forest identified PACPS12 as the most informative item for discrimination among occupations. Conclusion: PACPS responses contain distinctive patterns that enable moderate occupation prediction, with SVM and KNN yielding the best generalization in this small-sample setting. These results support the feasibility of combining a clinically grounded scale with machine learning methods, while underscoring the need for larger and externally validated datasets before clinical implementation.
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.