ArticleScientific reports2026
An adaptive data rebalancing framework for real-time traffic risk prediction.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study proposes a framework to mitigate data imbalance in risk prediction, providing an adaptive data rebalancing approach. Specifically, the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is applied for oversampling, and Random Undersampling (RU) for undersampling, using various fixed balancing ratios. Subsequently, the original and rebalanced data are input into four models to evaluate the impact of data rebalancing on prediction. Additionally, a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is introduced to identify the optimal ratio, with the explicit objective of jointly optimizing prediction precision and efficiency to achieve the best overall performance. Ultimately, convergence curve analysis and robustness checks are conducted to validate the stability and reliability of the results. Results show that data rebalancing enhances prediction performance, particularly after SMOTE processing, with a 2:1 ratio yielding the best outcomes. After GA optimization, the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) model consistently performs the best among the models processed with SMOTE and RU, with optimal ratios identified as 2.3:1 and 2.7:1. Finally, the reliability of the optimization is ensured by analyzing the convergence curves, which demonstrate a stable decrease in fitness values over iterations, thereby mitigating the risk of local optima. Additionally, robustness analysis validates the stability of the results under minor fluctuations in proportions.
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.