ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning and bayesian network based on fuzzy AHP framework for risk assessment in process units.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk assessment plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of process units. Artificial intelligence has become increasingly prevalent in risk assessment and prediction, offering the potential for more precise outcomes when integrated with other techniques. This study is both descriptive and analytical in nature. The dataset utilized comprises 160 deviations identified through the HAZOP technique. A variety of evaluation algorithms were employed in this study, ranging from ensemble methods like Random Forest, Hist Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, and CatBoost, to traditional methods such as Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). This broad array of algorithms enabled a comprehensive comparison of diverse modeling approaches, encompassing conventional statistical methods and cutting-edge machine-learning techniques. Among the algorithms tested, Random Forest, XGBoost, and CatBoost exhibited exceptional performance on the training and test datasets, achieving near-perfect AUC scores and accuracy values of 1.0000. In the fusion of Bayesian networks and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), the options "Corrosion in Electrolysis Cells" and "Damage and Explosion of Cells" were given higher priority over other options. The findings from this study suggest that machine learning techniques, along with the amalgamation of Bayesian networks and MCDM, can serve as effective tools for risk assessment and the prioritization of risk options. By leveraging these methodologies, suitable control and preventive measures can be implemented to mitigate risks effectively.
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.