ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating human-machine collaboration through a comparative analysis of experts, machine learning, and hybrid approaches in real estate valuation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Accurate prediction of real estate prices remains a major challenge due to dynamic market conditions and the limitations of traditional valuation methods. Empirical studies that directly compare human experts, machine learning (ML) models, and hybrid approaches are rare. This study examines the predictive accuracy and efficiency of an XGBoost-based ML model, real estate experts, and a hybrid human-machine approach. A model was trained using 21,736 real estate transactions from Vienna (2018-2022). We then conducted an experimental procedure with 13 experts who evaluated newly built apartments sold in 2023 under three conditions: limited information, state-of-the-art expert methods, and collaboration between experts and ML model. The results show that the ML model achieves accuracy comparable to that of experts while significantly reducing the time required for the task. Within the hybrid approach, experts were able to achieve the highest accuracy in comparison to other methods. These results underscore the potential of human-ML collaboration.
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.