ArticleScientific reports2026
Machine learning applications for predicting safety incidents in construction industry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Construction site accidents pose serious risks to workers and organizations, necessitating proactive measures to mitigate fatalities and severe injuries. Identifying key contributing factors and developing predictive models are essential. Whereas earlier studies relied on questionnaires or basic statistics and often focused on a single outcome, this study develops machine learning (ML) models that jointly address both the nature of incidents (NOI) and the severity of incidents (SOI). A dataset of 203 incidents from Saudi Arabia (2018–2024), comprising 14 explanatory variables, was used. Six ML algorithms, K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) were employed. Results show that all models achieved over 60% accuracy, with XGB performing best, reaching 89% accuracy in SOI prediction. Incorporating NOI as an explanatory feature further improved SOI prediction, highlighting the interdependence of incident characteristics and severity. SHAP analysis provided interpretable insights, revealing that NOI, precipitation, date of incident, and workforce size were the most influential predictors. Factors such as location, safety training, and PPE compliance contributed additional explanatory power. These findings provide practical insights for construction firms, supporting the development of targeted emergency response strategies and the efficient deployment of first-aid resources on site.
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.