Development of a regional-based predictive model of incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury using machine learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop a predictive model of incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). The data for training the model included both the incidence data and the covariates. The incidence data were extracted from systematic reviews and the covariates were extracted from data available in the international road federation database. Then the feature processing measures were taken. First we defined a hyper-parameter, missing-value threshold, in order to eliminate features that exceed this threshold. To tackle the problem of overfitting of model we determined the Pearson correlation of features and excluded those with more than 0.7 correlation. After feature selection three different models including simple linear regression, support vector regression, and multi-layer perceptron were examined to fit the purposes of this study. Finally, we evaluated the model based on three standard metrics: Mean Absolute Error, Root Mean Square Error, and R2. Our machine-learning based model could predict the incidence rate of TSCI with the mean absolute error of 4.66. Our model found “Vehicles in use, Total vehicles/Km of roads”, “Injury accidents/100 Million Veh-Km”, “Vehicles in use, Vans, Pick-ups, Lorries, Road Tractors”, “Inland surface Passengers Transport (Mio Passenger-Km), Rail”, and "% paved” as top predictors of transport-related TSCI (TRTSCI). Our model is proved to have a high accuracy to predict the incidence rate of TSCI for countries, especially where the main etiology of TSCI is related to road traffic injuries. Using this model, we can help the policymakers for resource allocation and evaluation of preventive measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".