Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41367886›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2025

Improving police recorded crime data for domestic violence and abuse through natural language processing.

Darren Cook, Ruth Weir, Leslie Humphreys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Darren CookViolence and Society Centre, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ruth WeirViolence and Society Centre, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Leslie HumphreysSchool of Law and Policing, University of Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is a growing public health and safeguarding concern in the UK, compounded by long-standing data quality issues in police records. Incomplete or inaccurate recording of key variables undermines the ability of police, health services, and partner agencies to assess risk, allocate resources, and design effective interventions. Methods: We evaluated two machine learning models (Random Forest and DistilBERT) for classifying the type of victim/offender relationship (ex-partner, current partner, and family) from approximately 19,000 DVA incidents recorded by a UK police force. Models were benchmarked against a static rule-based classifier and assessed using precision, recall, and F1-score. To reduce false positives in the most challenging relationship categories, we implemented a selective classification strategy that abstained from low-confidence predictions. Results: Both machine learning models outperformed the baseline across all metrics, with average absolute gains of 11% in precision and 16% in recall. Ex-partner cases were classified most accurately, while current partner cases were classified with the least accuracy. Selective classification substantially improved precision for underperforming categories, albeit at the expense of reduced coverage. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that computational tools can enhance the completeness and reliability of police DVA data, provided their use balances predictive accuracy, interpretability, and safeguarding risks.

Indexed as

DistilBERTdomestic violence (DV)free textnatural language processingpolice recorded crimesupervised machine learningtext classication

Identifiers

PMID41367886
PMCPMC12682816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.