Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42156466›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Adaptive schedule deviation correction for complex information system projects: a graph neural network approach with knowledge distillation.

Baixuan Zhang

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.

Baixuan ZhangInner Mongolia People's Hospital, Hohhot, 010010, Inner Mongolia, China. zhangbaixuan2025@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Schedule deviation continues to plague complex information system projects, with empirical surveys reporting that over 70% of such projects suffer meaningful overruns and average delays exceeding one-quarter of the originally planned duration. Conventional schedule management tools-earned value analysis, critical path computation, and linear regression-rest on assumptions of stable task environments and independent activity progression, assumptions that rarely hold when hundreds of interdependent tasks compete for shared resources under volatile requirements. More recent machine-learning predictors, including LSTM-based sequence models and random forests, improve point-wise accuracy yet still treat tasks in isolation or impose chain-like orderings, discarding the rich graph topology that governs real project execution. Equally problematic, deep predictive models often demand computational budgets that preclude the real-time responsiveness project managers need on the ground. This paper introduces an adaptive correction framework that addresses both shortcomings simultaneously. We model task dependencies as a graph processed by a hierarchical attention network, then compress the learned representations into a lightweight student model through a dual-tower knowledge distillation strategy, and finally close the loop with a reinforcement-learning module that selects corrective actions in response to predicted deviations. Experiments on 234 real-world projects show that the framework achieves an RMSE of 4.87% and an R² of 0.847, outperforming established baselines, while the distilled student model completes inference within a few milliseconds-fast enough for continuous schedule monitoring even on resource-constrained hardware.

Indexed as

Adaptive correctionGraph neural networkInformation systemKnowledge distillationProject managementSchedule deviation

Identifiers

PMID42156466
PMCPMC13385900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.