Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602602›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2025

Explainable attrition risk scoring for managerial retention decisions in human resource analytics.

M S Pavithran, S M Vadivel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

M S PavithranSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
S M VadivelCentre for Neuroinformatics, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Employee turnover remains a significant challenge for organizations as it becomes difficult for them to retain the same employees and continue with their operations efficiently. With the assistance of predictive analytics, HR managers will be able to foresee and lower the potential turnover. Conventional research has focused on the effectiveness of technical models, yet there is a lack of studies investigating the interpretability and reliability of managerial forecasts. Methods: This research used the Employee Attrition dataset and applied various pre-processing methods, including label encoding, feature scaling, and SMOTE for class balancing. Machine learning models were trained and optimized using grid search with stratified cross-validation. The best-performing model was calibrated using the sigmoid method to ensure the accuracy of the predicted probabilities. LIME enabled local interpretability, thus providing practical insights into individual employee attrition-related risks. Permutation feature importance analysis and SHAP summary plots helped in better understanding the model by showing the individual features that contributed to the attrition probability. Results: The Random Forest classifier achieved the highest AUC-ROC score of 97.37%. Risk distribution visualizations highlight employees with the highest attrition probability, and calibration is the main reason for the Brier Score reduction from 0.03873 to 0.03480. Discussion: The study concludes that by prioritizing interventions and increasing the accuracy of retention strategies, a calibrated, interpretable, and risk-stratified model can enhance HR decision-making. This framework aids HR leaders in transitioning from reactive to proactive workforce management by leveraging data-driven insights.

Indexed as

employee attritionexplainable AIhuman resource managementpredictive analyticsrisk scoring

Identifiers

PMID41602602
PMCPMC12832383

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.