[Retracted] Obesity Mass Monitoring in Medical Big Data Based on High‐Order Simulated Annealing Neural Network Algorithm
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of information technology, hospital informatization has become the general trend. In this context, disease monitoring based on medical big data has been proposed and has aroused widespread concern. In order to overcome the shortcomings of the BP neural network, such as slow convergence speed and easy to fall into local extremum, simulated annealing algorithm is used to optimize the BP neural network and high-order simulated annealing neural network algorithm is constructed. After screening the potential target indicators using the random forest algorithm, based on medical big data, the experiment uses high-order simulated annealing neural network algorithm to establish the obesity monitoring model to realize obesity monitoring and prevention. The results show that the training times of the SA-BP neural network are 1480 times lower than those of the BP neural network, and the mean square error of the SA-BP neural network is 3.43 times lower than that of the BP neural network. The MAE of the SA-BP neural network is 1.81 times lower than that of the BP neural network, and the average output error of the obesity monitoring model is about 2.35 at each temperature. After training, the average accuracy of the obesity monitoring model was 98.7%. The above results show that the obesity monitoring model based on medical big data can effectively complete the monitoring of obesity and has a certain contribution to the diagnosis, treatment, and early warning of obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".