ArticleScientific reports2026
Risk factor identification for large scale amusement facilities using mixture of experts and fusion of multiple models.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The safety of large-scale amusement facilities is an important part of public safety. Their operational risks are sudden and diverse, and efficient and accurate text recognition and analysis methods are urgently needed to support risk warning and intelligent supervision. In view of the problems of low recognition efficiency and poor adaptability of traditional methods, this paper proposes a risk text recognition model of MoE + Stacking multi-perspective fusion, which combines semantic embedding and keyword feature construction, and integrates clustering, graph modeling and multi-model integration strategies to achieve structured modeling and accurate recognition of amusement facility risk information. The results show that the MoE + Stacking model is significantly better than a single model in multiple indicators. The accuracy, precision, recall and F1 value are increased by 3.44, 3.50, 3.33 and 2.90 percentage points respectively compared with the original Stacking model, and the LogLoss is reduced by 0.41%, showing a stronger risk identification ability. The research results provide effective technical support for public safety text analysis and intelligent supervision of special equipment, and have good generalization and promotion value.
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.