ArticleScientific reports2026
Supervised machine learning algorithms for classifications of gender-based violence in Somalia: a comparison of oversampling techniques.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gender-based violence can include sexual, physical, mental, and economic harm inflicted in public or in private. This violence also has a direct psychological effect, physical and financial consequences, and it has multiple underlying reasons, such as social, economic, cultural, political, and religious aspects. By applying multiple resampling techniques, this study aims to improve the precision and accuracy of supervised machine learning classifications of gender-based violence (GBV) using the SDHS dataset. The class imbalance between GBV-positive and GBV-negative instances makes it very challenging to produce reliable classification machine learning models. To address this issue, oversampling machine learning approaches, including synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE), adaptive synthetic (ADASYN), and random over-sampling (ROS), were employed to classify the GBV data in Somalia. The logistic regression (LR), decision tree (CART), random forest (RF), naïve Bayes (NB), k-nearest Neighbors (KNN), and support vector machine (SVM) methods were trained and evaluated. In addition, oversampling techniques were employed for improving the imbalanced datasets. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess each machine learning classifier and to compare performance on the original GBV dataset. Among the resampling techniques, SMOTE (RF = 0.992, CART = 0.969, and KNN = 0.957) outperformed ADASYN (RF = 0.912, CART = 0.910, and KNN = 0.876) and ROS (RF = 0.920, CART = 0.919, and KNN = 0.880) across almost all evaluation metrics. The classifiers that performed the best were random forest (RF) and classification and regression trees (CART), then k-nearest Neighbors. After resampling the imbalanced dataset, we may therefore conclude that the random forest (AUC = 0.972), CART (AUC = 0.969) and KNN (AUC = 0.957) machine learning classifiers are better at accurately classifying the k-nearest Neighbors dataset. In addition, compared to the other oversampling techniques, SMOTE was used to the machine learning classifiers to balance the imbalanced class distributions in favour of the minority class. In addition, SMOTE with the Mathews correlation coefficient (MCC) outperformed ADASYN and ROS resampling techniques. The MCC values for SMOTE reached their highest values (RF = 0.86, CART = 0.85, and KNN = 0.80), indicating strong overall predictive reliability of the machine learning models. Therefore, the findings of this analysis will assist government and non-government organizations in making policy decisions to GBV risks.
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.