Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41965399›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Explaining and predicting consumer decision-making in E-commerce using an intelligent hybrid framework for impulsive and planned purchase behavior.

Na Cui

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

1 author.

Na CuiSchool of Supply Chain Management, NINGBO POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, Ningbo, 315800, Zhejiang, China. Na_CuiCC@outlook.com.

Funding

Research Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education (Project ‎No. 24YJA840002)‎ ‎24YJA840002‎
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately distinguishing between impulsive and planned purchasing behavior remains a critical challenge in e-commerce analytics, given the multidimensional and dynamic nature of consumer data. Existing machine learning approaches often rely on conventional hyperparameter tuning strategies, which may limit model robustness and generalization. This study proposes a hybrid framework that integrates two bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithms—Walrus Optimization Algorithm (WaOA) and Weevil Damage Optimization Algorithm (WDOA)—with three gradient boosting classifiers (XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost) to improve hyperparameter optimization and classification performance. Empirical evaluation indicates that the WaOA-optimized XGBoost model achieved strong predictive performance, reaching F1-scores of 0.9879 for impulsive purchases and 0.9798 for need-based purchases, with an overall testing accuracy of 97.3%. Although statistical tests suggest that performance differences among the evaluated models are not significant, the optimized configurations demonstrate consistently high predictive capability across evaluation metrics. Feature importance analysis identifies product rating, customer satisfaction, and loyalty program membership as key predictors of consumer decision type. The proposed framework demonstrates promising performance and interpretability, offering practical support for data-driven decision-making in digital retail environments.

Indexed as

CommerceConsumer BehaviorDecision MakingImpulsive BehaviorAlgorithmsBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsData AnalyticsHumansMachine LearningPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsDynamic pricingE-commerce analyticsHybrid machine learningHyperparameter tuningImpulse buying predictionMetaheuristic algorithm

Identifiers

PMID41965399
PMCPMC13230933

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.