ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of the level of responsibility in pedestrian crashes using machine learning algorithms.
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
Traffic crashes involving pedestrians tend to result in the most casualties (minor, serious, or fatal). Therefore, accurately determining the level of responsibility in a pedestrian crash is crucial, as liability can lead to civil, administrative, or criminal consequences. Despite its importance, the scientific literature contains very few studies focused specially on the attribution of responsibility in traffic accidents, and even fewer focus on pedestrian collisions. This study evaluated different supervised classification models using Machine Learning (ML) techniques to classify the levels of responsibility of both drivers and pedestrians using real crash data. In this evaluation, 14 binary variables were considered based on four subsystems: human, technological, structural, and normative. The goal is to help judicial and police authorities make more efficient and objective attributions of responsibility. This involves analyzing the most influential variables after the classification process. Then, policymakers will be able to use these assessments to develop new strategies for improving road safety. The dataset consists of 510 pedestrian crashes extracted from the reports by the Local Police of Badajoz (LPB) in Spain and judicial decisions of the Spanish Judiciary (SJ). Of the models analyzed, Decision Trees (DT), Naïve Bayes (NB), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) models produced the best initial performance. These three models were then compared, and the metrics showed that the DT model is the best option. Furthermore, the feature importance analysis of the 14 variables revealed that possessing a driver's license is the most influential factor in determining responsibility (47.26%). The next most influential factors were the pedestrian's location (15.35%); driver under the influence of alcohol/drugs (7.24%); and distracted driving, e.g., using a mobile phone (7.04%).
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.