Oalib Open Access Library Journal 2333-9705 2333-9721 Scientific Research Publishing 10.4236/oalib.1112388 Oalib-137419 Articles Biomedical Life Sciences, Business Economics, Chemistry Materials Science, Computer Science Communications, Earth Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Medicine Healthcare, Physics Mathematics, Social Sciences Humanities Comparative Analysis of GABAergics vs. Opioids in Chronic Pain Management Rocco de Filippis 1 Abdullah Al Foysal 2 aDepartment of Neuroscience, Institute of Psychopathology, Rome, Italy aDepartment of Computer Engineering (AI), University of Genova, Genova, Italy 05 11 2024 11 11 1 25 26, September 2024 15, September 2024 15, November 2024 © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2014 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Background: Chronic pain management presents significant challenges in clinical practice, particularly in selecting pharmacological treatments that balance efficacy and safety. GABAergic and opioid medications are two commonly prescribed drug classes for pain relief, but their comparative effectiveness and safety profiles remain a topic of ongoing debate. Objectives: This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of GABAergic and opioid medications in managing chronic pain, using synthetic patient data and advanced machine learning models. Methods: Synthetic data simulating a diverse patient population were generated to reflect real-world variations in demographics, treatment regimens, and outcomes. Machine learning models, including Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, and Stacking, were applied to analyze the relationships between patient characteristics, treatment types, and outcomes such as pain reduction and quality of life. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis was used to interpret the models and identify key predictors influencing treatment responses. Results: The Gradient Boosting model demonstrated strong predictive performance, with SHAP analysis highlighting features such as drug type, dosage, and patient age as significant factors influencing treatment outcomes. Opioid treatments were found to be more effective in pain reduction but associated with a higher risk of side effects, whereas GABAergics had a safer profile but were less potent in severe pain cases. Conclusions: This study underscores the value of machine learning in chronic pain management by providing insights into the trade-offs between the effectiveness and safety of GABAergic and opioid medications. These findings suggest that personalized treatment plans, informed by patient characteristics and model predictions, could optimize pain management while minimizing adverse effects.Subject AreasDrugs&Devices, Neurology Chronic Pain Management Opioid Treatments GABAergic Medications Machine Learning SHAP Analysis Quality of Life Pain Reduction 1. 引言近年来，随着多媒体技术和经济多元全球化的不断发展，跨界思维不断冲击着传统的品牌联合，电商、餐饮、服装等行业相继掀起跨界联合风潮，营销学之父菲利普·科特勒曾经说过：除了主流品牌和小众品牌以外，混合品牌也将在未来占据一席之地，其中这个混合品牌与后面的“跨界品牌联合”在某种程度上是一样的，跨界品牌联合是指处于不同行业边界的品牌跨边界进行合作共同推出新产品 [1] 。在跨界联合的实践过程中有的品牌跨界备受关注，溢出效应明显，例如Rio华为手机结合保时捷设计出的超级旗舰MateRS设计好评如潮，大白兔品牌奶糖与加美净这类日化品牌推出的奶糖味的唇膏，上架即一扫而光，然而有的跨界联合却反响平平，甚至出现负面溢出效果，例如喜茶与杜蕾斯的联合产品没有得到消费者的积极评价，甚至使消费者产生反感情绪。之前关于品牌联合效果影响因素的分析上主要体现在联合匹配性、在产品关系和逻辑上的契合度，以及品牌要素互补性方面，但是在研究跨界联合时没有考虑到跨界品牌双方本身就具有较大的差异性，所以在一定程度上对跨界联合的成败现象并不能完全解释。因此，本文聚焦品牌跨界联合情景下，根据形式与功能的整合程度将品牌跨界联合的整合度分为高、低两种，基于SOR模型 [2] ，进而分析品牌跨界联合时的整合度高低对消费者品牌联合评价的影响机制，并且在这个基础上研究消费者感知价值在品牌跨界联合时的整合度对消费者品牌联合评价的中介作用。 2. 文献回顾及研究假设(一) 品牌跨界联合整合度与消费者品牌联合评价相关研究有关品牌跨界联合的概念大多围绕跨界营销进行，在市场营销中有共生营销的概念，它是指一种合作联盟关系，合作双方及多方为实现资源共享，提升竞争能力而形成的一种长期或者短期联盟合作关系，而品牌跨界联合则是指两个异质行业、互相独立但拥有平等商业地位的品牌通过活化老品牌，共享互补资源，降低成本等方式以推出新产品，从而实现销售额的增加 [3] 。两者具有一定的相似性，因此根据前人的论述及本文的研究内容将品牌跨界联合大致定义为品牌联合的特殊形式，是指同一个新的产品中存有两个来自不同且没有竞争关系行业的品牌。由于合作品牌双方的合作程度对消费者的品牌评价会产生相应的影响，Newmeyer等(2018) [4] 根据联合产品在形式和功能上的结合程度提出了六种整合度不同的品牌联合形式，从低到高依次为同地品牌联合、共同促销、捆绑联合、成分联合、要素联合、共同研发联合，本文根据形式和功能的结合程度，将共同研发联合和元素联合划分为高度整合，成分联合和捆绑联合划分为中度整合，共同促销和同地品牌联合划分为低度整合。一个品牌产品所带来的功能或者形式较为单一，不能满足消费者日益多元的功能需求和价值需求，如果将两个异质性产品进行跨界联合，不仅能够带来冲击固有认知的创新感，还有益于提升消费者的忠诚度，但是差异过大的品牌联合可能会产生负面溢出效应 [5] 。所以大多学者聚焦于品牌跨界联合前的联合匹配性和契合度的研究，忽视了品牌跨界联合过程中的整合程度，而消费者对跨界品牌联合的评价在一定层面上反映出跨界联合双方合作的效果，较高的评价不仅有助于维持对品牌资产较好品牌的忠诚度，还有利于提升品牌资产较弱一方的品牌形象(Lin, 2013)，在跨界品牌联合中合作双方的交融程度越深，即产品整合度越高，越有益于消费者体验到品牌双方各自的优势，感受到跨界联合产品所带来的新奇与价值感，从而促进消费者对跨界品牌联合作出积极评价。综上所述，本文提出假设1：H1：在品牌跨界联合时，产品整合度对品牌联合评价有正向影响。(二) 在品牌跨界联合时，感知价值在产品联合整合度对品牌联合评价中的中介作用消费者感知价值这一概念是基于现代营销中的消费者价值理论，该理论认为营销其实是交换价值与感知价值的过程，消费者在得到产品后会对其付出成本与感知价值效用进行比较，从而给出整体评价 [6] 。消费者感知价值时往往有三个特征，对产品价值会根据自身主观性进行感知，并且倾向于在比较中感知价值，其感知的价值还具有阶梯性 [7] 。因此，范秀成等(2003) [8] 将消费者感知价值概述为消费者对企业提供的产品和服务价值的主观评价，当消费者感知到价值时会对品牌联合产生积极评价，而产品整合度越高，即跨界联合产品无论是形式还是功能方面都高度融合，没有令消费者产生突兀感，能够驱动消费者产生价值感知，将异质的产品进行创新融合，起初的不匹配性能够打破了对原有品牌的刻板印象，再通过后面的高度整合能够使消费者产生创新感知的同时降低跨界创新产品的不确定性，感受到品牌联合带来的综合价值，而消费者的感知价值会影响消费者对品牌的选择，进而促进消费者对品牌联合作出正向评价 [9] 。因此，本文假设在品牌跨界联合过程中，合作双方后期在形式和功能上的产品整合度将影响消费者感知价值，又因为高整合度与品牌联合评价具有正向影响，推测消费者感知价值也将正向影响品牌联合评价。综上所述，本文提出假设2：H2：在品牌跨界联合时，消费者感知价值在产品整合度对消费者品牌联合评价的影响中起到中介作用。基于此，本文以SOR模型为研究框架，将品牌框架联合时的产品整合度作为刺激源，消费者从中获得的价值感知作为个体心理呈现，消费者对品牌联合的评价作为消费者者反应，构建在品牌跨界联合中产品整合程度对品牌联合评价的影响模型，模型如 图1 所示。 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="oalib.137419-"></xref>Figure 1. Research model图1. 研究模型 图1. 研究模型 3. 实证设计与研究发现1) 研究设计与数据收集这部分由前测和正式实验组成，前测主要是通过了解市场上影响较广的跨界联合产品，并由此确定实验对象，正式实验根据产品组合利用单因素两水平，即产品整合程度高低的组间设计，检验品牌跨界联合时产品整合程度对品牌联合评价的主要影响以及消费者价值感知对其中的中介效应。① 前测。通过网络咨询了解与品牌跨界词条有关的内容，其中包含了有关跨界产品组合功能与形式的324条记录。选择了6组市面上真实的跨界组合案例，分别为蔻驰皮革的贝克家具、加入当尼柔顺剂的汰渍洗衣液、安装劳斯莱斯发动机的空客机、戴尔电脑与佳能打印机、配有迪士尼玩具的儿童餐、出售赛百味三明治的沃尔玛。通过变动产品整合度的操纵方法，让受访者填写整合度的7级量表 [4] ，对这些组合的产品整合度进行打分。此次前测收回有效问卷78份，并通过统计数据分析得出，蔻驰皮革的贝克家具这组共同研发组合的整合度评分均值为M 整合度 = 5.26，出售赛百味三明治的沃尔玛这组同地品牌联合销售的整合度评分均值为M 整合度 = 4.14，两者之间的差异很明显，将蔻驰皮革的贝克家具作为高整合度组合，而将出售赛百味三明治的沃尔玛作为低整合度组合，并将两组组合作为实验的刺激源。② 正式实验。该实验采用单因素两水平的设计，包括了102名消费者，其中人员年龄集中于26~35岁，男性占比42.15%，女性占比57.85%，教育程度占比主要是本科学历，将被试进行随机等量分配，其中高低整合度组各自均为61人。让产品高整合度组的被试浏览蔻驰皮革的贝克家具在功能和形式上的整合材料信息，同时让产品低整合度组的被试浏览沃尔玛出售赛百味三明治的销售整合信息，两组被试在看到品牌跨界联合刺激材料后如实填写产品感知价值量表以及品牌联合评价量表，具体量表题项如 表1 所示。 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="oalib.137419-"></xref>Table 1. Measurement scaleTable 1. Measurement scale 表1. 测量量表

测量维度

测量题项参考来源

消费者感知价值

讨论/拥有/分享这项联名让我很开心

李慧，周雨(2021)

讨论/拥有/分享这项联名让我给他人留下了好印象

这项联名让我获得了自我满足

Sweeney and Soutar (2001)

该联名是我喜欢的

讨论/拥有/分享这项联名让我结识了很多朋友

品牌联合评价

我认为该产品很吸引人

Shih等(2013)

我非常喜欢该联合产品

该联合产品表达了我的个性
2) 数据分析① 问卷的信效度检验。利用SPSS 24.0对实验中的数据进行信度与效度的检验，其中产品感知价值量表以及品牌联合评价量表的Cronbach’ α系数分别为0.891、0.912，两者均在0.8以上，说明问卷信度较好。同时，通过验证性因子分析得出组合的CR和AVE值，从中发现组合效度AR值大于0.7，说明所选题项的一致性好，AVE值也达到了推荐的标准，所以该变量具有较好的效度。②主效应检验。在品牌跨界联合中，通过独立样本T检验验证产品整合度对消费者品牌联合评价有显著影响，即主效应检验。如 表2 所示，产品整合度不同，消费者对品牌跨界联合评价也显著不同，在产品整合度较高的跨界联合中，消费者对品牌联合评价(M = 2.811)显著高于产品整合度低的跨界联合产品(M = 1.649)，因此本文的假设1得到验证，即在品牌跨界联合时，产品整合度对品牌联合评价有正向影响。 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="oalib.137419-"></xref>Table 2. Comparison of consumers’ evaluation of co-brand under different product integration degreesTable 2. Comparison of consumers’ evaluation of co-brand under different product integration degrees 表2. 不同产品整合度下消费者对品牌联合评价的差异比较

整合度分组

个案数

平均值

标准差

T值

品牌联合评价

高整合度

61

2.811

0.678

−5.650***

低整合度

61

1.649

0.718
③ 中介效应检验。本文以跨界产品整合度为自变量、消费者感知价值为中介变量、品牌联合评价为因变量，运用PROCESS程序中的model 4，通过Bootstrap方法对感知价值的中介效应进行检验，其中控制性别、年龄等人口特征变量。结果显示，产品整合程度对品牌联合评价的总效应为0.942，95%置信区间为(0.642, 1.193)，直接效应为0.401，95%置信区间为(0.076, 0.723)，均不包括0，产品整合程度对消费者感知价值具有显著的正向影响[B = 1.231, 95%置信区间为(0.844, 1.713), SE = 0.231, t = 5.895, p < 0.01]，消费者感知价值对品牌联合评价具有显著正向影响[B = 0.449, 95%置信区间为(0.289, 0.589), SE = 0.071, t = 6.334, p < 0.01]，从产品整合度到感知价值，再到品牌联合评价，其中的间接效应为0.673，95%的置信区间(0.302, 0.937)，不含0，由此得以验证感知价值在产品整合程度与品牌联合评价关系里起到中介作用。 4. 结论与启示本文通过实证分析研究了处于品牌跨界联合中，产品整合度对品牌联合评价的影响关系，主要得到两个结论：首先，在品牌跨界联合时，相比于产品整合度较低的跨界组合，产品整合度高的跨界组合更能够带来积极的品牌联合评价，即产品整合度对品牌联合评价有正向影响；其次，消费者感知价值在跨界产品整合度对品牌联合评价的影响中起到中介作用。通过实证研究，发现产品整合度越高，越有利于消费者感知价值，同时当消费者感知价值以后会对品牌联合作出积极评价，即消费者感知价值在跨界产品整合度和品牌联合评价中起到中介作用。而SOR理论正是关于刺激对个体心理产生影响，从而产生反应的研究模型，因此本文基于SOR理论，在品牌跨界联合时，产品整合度高这一刺激源使得消费者根据偏好流畅性的心理会降低对跨界创新产品的不确定性，从而增强消费者对该类商品的接受度，并从中感知到联合的综合价值。当消费者感受到情绪价值或者社会价值时会产生积极反应，即较高的品牌联合评价，这不仅维持了消费者对原有品牌产品的忠诚度，又在一定程度上提升了品牌资产，为企业有针对性地进行品牌跨界联合提供了感知价值角度的理论支持。本文的研究为企业进行跨界创新实践活动提供了相应指导。首先，尽管市场上出现的跨界创新现象层出不穷，与不同的品牌进行跨界创新能够在短期内快速吸引消费者，并从长期唤起品牌活力，提升品牌创新能力，但是在这个过程中企业应该结合自身的发展情况和战略模式进行调整，不要跟风进行盲目跨界。合适的跨界能够带来正面效应，但是如果缺少跨界的前提情景和适宜时机，跨界将给企业的发展带来无论是品牌形象还是消费者受众都产生消极影响。其次，在品牌跨界联合时，除了考虑前期匹配性，还需要进行整合度的规划。许多企业在进行品牌联合时往往考虑合作双方固有的形象或者市场是否匹配，匹配性较大可以提升消费者的可接受度，但是也可能固化消费者认知。对于需要进行品牌跨界转型的企业来说，同质品牌联合对于公司的发展战略来说意义不大，如果品牌联合异质性较大，品牌联合发行起初可能会吸引眼球，赚取热度，收获许多受众；对于品牌资产不对等的双方来说，影响也不尽相同，但后期消费者感知的功能和形式方面的异质性过于突出，可能会引起消费者的排斥心理，进而降低消费者评价。企业可以通过提升联合产品在功能和形式方面的交融整合度，产品整合度高时消费者更加容易理解品牌联合的意义和价值，也能够避免品牌联合带来的不适感，降低消费者对冲击固有认知的排斥，进而更加理解品牌融合的真正目的以及给自身带来的价值，有利于提升消费者对品牌联合的认同感，对品牌联合做出积极评价，将不匹配产品转换为一次具有创新意义的匹配产品。最后，如果将跨界产品匹配性作为消费者是否接受的前提条件，那么整合度的提升将有益于消费者从中感受到该跨界联合所带来的综合价值。好的品牌联合除了考虑前期双方的联合匹配度，也要形成良好的产品整合度，如果前期的匹配度不能达到预期，那么可以通过后期从产品和功能方面对匹配联合整合度进行调整，从而激发消费者的购买意愿以及对该品牌联合的积极评价。所以企业在实践中要注意消费者感知价值在产品整合度对品牌联合评价中的中介作用，通过良好的整合促使消费者感知产品价值，进而提升品牌联合评价。 References Clauw, D.J., Essex, M.N., Pitman, V. and Jones, K.D. (2019) Reframing Chronic Pain as a Disease, not a Symptom: Rationale and Implications for Pain Management. Postgraduate Medicine, 131, 185-198. >https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2019.1574403 Jasmin, L., Wu, M. and Ohara, P. (2004) GABA Puts a Stop to Pain. Current Drug Target-CNS&Neurological Disorders, 3, 487-505. >https://doi.org/10.2174/1568007043336716 Enna, S.J. and McCarson, K.E. (2006) The Role of GABA in the Mediation and Perception of Pain. Advances in Pharmacology, 54, 1-27. >https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-3589(06)54001-3 Volkow, N.D. and Blanco, C. (2023) Substance Use Disorders: A Comprehensive Update of Classification, Epidemiology, Neurobiology, Clinical Aspects, Treatment and Prevention. World Psychiatry, 22, 203-229. >https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21073 Saab, K., Tu, T., Weng, W.-H., Tanno, R., Stutz, D., Wulczyn, E., Zhang, F., et al. (2024) Capabilities of Gemini Models in Medicine. arXiv: 2404.18416. >https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.18416 Wani, N.A., Kumar, R. and Bedi, J. (2024) Harnessing Fusion Modeling for Enhanced Breast Cancer Classification through Interpretable Artificial Intelligence and in-Depth Explanations. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 136, Article 108939. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108939 Pezoulas, V.C., Zaridis, D.I., Mylona, E., Androutsos, C., Apostolidis, K., Tachos, N.S., et al. (2024) Synthetic Data Generation Methods in Healthcare: A Review on Open-Source Tools and Methods. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 23, 2892-2910. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2024.07.005 Abebe, M., Shin, Y., Noh, Y., Lee, S. and Lee, I. (2020) Machine Learning Approaches for Ship Speed Prediction Towards Energy Efficient Shipping. Applied Sciences, 10, Article 2325. >https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072325 Sweeney, K. and Griffiths, F. (2002) Complexity and Healthcare: An Introduction. Radcliffe Publishing. He, S., Leanse, L.G. and Feng, Y. (2021) Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Assisted Drug Delivery for Effective Treatment of Infectious Diseases. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 178, Article 113922. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2021.113922 Weitzel, T., Beimborn, D. and König, W. (2006) A Unified Economic Model of Standard Diffusion: The Impact of Standardization Cost, Network Effects, and Network Topology. MIS Quarterly, 30, 489-514. >https://doi.org/10.2307/25148770 Li, J., Cheng, K., Wang, S., Morstatter, F., Trevino, R.P., Tang, J., et al. (2017) Feature Selection. ACM Computing Surveys, 50, 1-45. >https://doi.org/10.1145/3136625 Eichler, H., Abadie, E., Breckenridge, A., Flamion, B., Gustafsson, L.L., Leufkens, H., et al. (2011) Bridging the Efficacy-Effectiveness Gap: A Regulator’s Perspective on Addressing Variability of Drug Response. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 495-506. >https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3501 Dormann, C.F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., et al. (2012) Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with It and a Simulation Study Evaluating Their Performance. Ecography, 36, 27-46. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x Li, S., Harner, E.J. and Adjeroh, D.A. (2011) Random KNN Feature Selection—A Fast and Stable Alternative to Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, Article No. 450. >https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-450 Seni, G. and Elder, J. (2010) Ensemble Methods in Data Mining: Improving Accuracy through Combining Predictions. Morgan&Claypool Publishers. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Kneib, T., Augustin, T. and Zeileis, A. (2008) Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, Article No. 307. >https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 Bentéjac, C., Csörgő, A. and Martínez-Muñoz, G. (2020) A Comparative Analysis of Gradient Boosting Algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54, 1937-1967. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5 Lopez-Martin, M., Carro, B. and Sanchez-Esguevillas, A. (2019) Neural Network Architecture Based on Gradient Boosting for IoT Traffic Prediction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 100, 656-673. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.05.060 Hajihosseinlou, M., Maghsoudi, A. and Ghezelbash, R. (2024) Stacking: A Novel Data-Driven Ensemble Machine Learning Strategy for Prediction and Mapping of Pb-Zn Prospectivity in Varcheh District, West Iran. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, Article 121668. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121668 Cui, C., Hu, M., Weir, J.D. and Wu, T. (2016) A Recommendation System for Meta-Modeling: A Meta-Learning Based Approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 46, 33-44. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.10.021 Chen, C., Zhang, Q., Yu, B., Yu, Z., Lawrence, P.J., Ma, Q., et al. (2020) Improving Protein-Protein Interactions Prediction Accuracy Using Xgboost Feature Selection and Stacked Ensemble Classifier. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 123, Article 103899. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103899 Xu, Y. and Goodacre, R. (2018) On Splitting Training and Validation Set: A Comparative Study of Cross-Validation, Bootstrap and Systematic Sampling for Estimating the Generalization Performance of Supervised Learning. Journal of Analysis and Testing, 2, 249-262. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s41664-018-0068-2 Cichosz, P. (2011) Assessing the Quality of Classification Models: Performance Measures and Evaluation Procedures. Open Engineering, 1, 132-158. >https://doi.org/10.2478/s13531-011-0022-9 Hsu, M., Lessmann, S., Sung, M., Ma, T. and Johnson, J.E.V. (2016) Bridging the Divide in Financial Market Forecasting: Machine Learners vs. Financial Economists. Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 215-234. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.033 Pearce, J. and Ferrier, S. (2000) Evaluating the Predictive Performance of Habitat Models Developed Using Logistic Regression. Ecological Modelling, 133, 225-245. >https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3800(00)00322-7 Powers, D.M.W. (2020) Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation. arXiv: 2010.16061. >https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.16061 Jeni, L.A., Cohn, J.F. and De La Torre, F. (2013) Facing Imbalanced Data—Recommendations for the Use of Performance Metrics. 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, Geneva, 2-5 September 2013, 245-251. >https://doi.org/10.1109/acii.2013.47 Lobo, J.M., Jiménez-Valverde, A. and Real, R. (2007) AUC: A Misleading Measure of the Performance of Predictive Distribution Models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17, 145-151. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x Stenwig, E., Salvi, G., Rossi, P.S. and Skjærvold, N.K. (2022) Comparative Analysis of Explainable Machine Learning Prediction Models for Hospital Mortality. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 22, Article No. 53. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01540-w Feng, D., Wang, W., Mangalathu, S. and Taciroglu, E. (2021) Interpretable XGBoost-SHAP Machine-Learning Model for Shear Strength Prediction of Squat RC Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 147. >https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0003115 Antoniadi, A.M., Du, Y., Guendouz, Y., Wei, L., Mazo, C., Becker, B.A., et al. (2021) Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for XAI in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 11, Article 5088. >https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115088 Tonekaboni, S., Joshi, S., McCradden, M.D. and Goldenberg, A. (2019) What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Use. arXiv: 1905.05134. >https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.05134 Kuo, N.I., Garcia, F., Sönnerborg, A., Böhm, M., Kaiser, R., Zazzi, M., et al. (2023) Generating Synthetic Clinical Data That Capture Class Imbalanced Distributions with Generative Adversarial Networks: Example Using Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 144, Article 104436. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104436 Ziegler, G., Ridgway, G.R., Dahnke, R. and Gaser, C. (2014) Individualized Gaussian Process-Based Prediction and Detection of Local and Global Gray Matter Abnormalities in Elderly Subjects. NeuroImage, 97, 333-348. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.04.018 Sheiner, L.B., Rosenberg, B. and Melmon, K.L. (1972) Modelling of Individual Pharmacokinetics for Computer-Aided Drug Dosage. Computers and Biomedical Research, 5, 441-459. >https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4809(72)90051-1 Glynn, R.J. and Buring, J.E. (1996) Ways of Measuring Rates of Recurrent Events. BMJ, 312, 364-367. >https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7027.364 Maharana, K., Mondal, S. and Nemade, B. (2022) A Review: Data Pre-Processing and Data Augmentation Techniques. Global Transitions Proceedings, 3, 91-99. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gltp.2022.04.020 Ahmad, G.N., Shafiullah, Fatima, H., Abbas, M., Rahman, O., Imdadullah,, et al. (2022) Mixed Machine Learning Approach for Efficient Prediction of Human Heart Disease by Identifying the Numerical and Categorical Features. Applied Sciences, 12, Article 7449. >https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157449 Thévenot, E.A., Roux, A., Xu, Y., Ezan, E. and Junot, C. (2015) Analysis of the Human Adult Urinary Metabolome Variations with Age, Body Mass Index, and Gender by Implementing a Comprehensive Workflow for Univariate and OPLS Statistical Analyses. Journal of Proteome Research, 14, 3322-3335. >https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b00354 Hussain, M., Sahudin, S. and Yussof, I. (2020) Exploring the Use of Computer-Aided Learning Modules (CAL) to Enhance the Teaching and Learning of Pharmacokinetics to Pharmacy Students. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 12, 354-359. >https://doi.org/10.5530/jyp.2020.12.91 Smith, L.E., Webster, R.K. and Rubin, G.J. (2020) A Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Side-Effect Expectations from Medical Interventions. Health Expectations, 23, 731-758. >https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13059 Curtis, A., Smith, T., Ziganshin, B. and Elefteriades, J. (2016) The Mystery of the Z-Score. AORTA, 4, 124-130. >https://doi.org/10.12945/j.aorta.2016.16.014 Schielzeth, H. (2010) Simple Means to Improve the Interpretability of Regression Coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 103-113. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00012.x Kubota, K.J., Chen, J.A. and Little, M.A. (2016) Machine Learning for Large-Scale Wearable Sensor Data in Parkinson’s Disease: Concepts, Promises, Pitfalls, and Futures. Movement Disorders, 31, 1314-1326. >https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26693 Zheng, A. and Casari, A. (2018) Feature Engineering for Machine Learning: Principles and Techniques for Data Scientists. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Hukkelhoven, C.W.P.M., Steyerberg, E.W., Rampen, A.J.J., Farace, E., Habbema, J.D.F., Marshall, L.F., et al. (2003) Patient Age and Outcome Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: An Analysis of 5600 Patients. Journal of Neurosurgery, 99, 666-673. >https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2003.99.4.0666 Smith, E.M.L., Pang, H., Cirrincione, C., Fleishman, S., Paskett, E.D., Ahles, T., et al. (2013) Effect of Duloxetine on Pain, Function, and Quality of Life among Patients with Chemotherapy-Induced Painful Peripheral Neuropathy. JAMA, 309, 1359-1367. >https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.2813 Benyamin, R. (2008) Opioid Complications and Side Effects. Pain Physician, 2, S105-S120. >https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj.2008/11/s105 White, D.B., Walawander, C.A., Tung, Y. and Grasela, T.H. (1991) An Evaluation of Point and Interval Estimates in Population Pharmacokinetics Using Nonmem Analysis. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 19, 87-112. >https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01062194 Zhang, C., Manheim, F.T., Hinde, J. and Grossman, J.N. (2005) Statistical Characterization of a Large Geochemical Database and Effect of Sample Size. Applied Geochemistry, 20, 1857-1874. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2005.06.006 Clemen, R.T. (1989) Combining Forecasts: A Review and Annotated Bibliography. International Journal of Forecasting, 5, 559-583. >https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(89)90012-5 Ali, J., Khan, R., Ahmad, N. and Maqsood, I. (2012) Random Forests and Decision Trees. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9, 272-278. Prasad, A.M., Iverson, L.R. and Liaw, A. (2006) Newer Classification and Regression Tree Techniques: Bagging and Random Forests for Ecological Prediction. Ecosystems, 9, 181-199. >https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0054-1 Callens, A., Morichon, D., Abadie, S., Delpey, M. and Liquet, B. (2020) Using Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Trees to Improve Wave Forecast at a Specific Location. Applied Ocean Research, 104, Article 102339. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2020.102339 Svetnik, V., Wang, T., Tong, C., Liaw, A., Sheridan, R.P. and Song, Q. (2005) Boosting: An Ensemble Learning Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 45, 786-799. >https://doi.org/10.1021/ci0500379 Zhang, Y., Ma, J., Liang, S., Li, X. and Liu, J. (2022) A Stacking Ensemble Algorithm for Improving the Biases of Forest Aboveground Biomass Estimations from Multiple Remotely Sensed Datasets. GIScience&Remote Sensing, 59, 234-249. >https://doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2021.2023842 Stefana, E. and Paltrinieri, N. (2021) ProMetaUS: A Proactive Meta-Learning Uncertainty-Based Framework to Select Models for Dynamic Risk Management. Safety Science, 138, Article 105238. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105238 Munoz, D., Bagnell, J.A. and Hebert, M. (2010) Stacked Hierarchical Labeling. Computer Vision—ECCV 2010, Crete, 5-11 September 2010 57-70. >https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15567-3_5 Krstinić, D., Braović, M., Šerić, L. and Božić-Štulić, D. (2020) Multi-Label Classifier Performance Evaluation with Confusion Matrix. Computer Science&Information Technology, 1, 1-14. >https://doi.org/10.5121/csit.2020.100801 Wynants, L., van Smeden, M., McLernon, D.J., Timmerman, D., Steyerberg, E.W. and Van Calster, B. (2019) Three Myths about Risk Thresholds for Prediction Models. BMC Medicine, 17, Article No. 192. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1425-3 Zou, K.H., Hall, W.J. and Shapiro, D.E. (1997) Smooth Non-Parametric Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves for Continuous Diagnostic Tests. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 2143-2156. >https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19971015)16:19<2143::aid-sim655>3.3.co;2-v Santika, T. (2010) Assessing the Effect of Prevalence on the Predictive Performance of Species Distribution Models Using Simulated Data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20, 181-192. >https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00581.x Agrawal, A., Viktor, H.L. and Paquet, E. (2015) SCUT: Multi-Class Imbalanced Data Classification Using SMOTE and Cluster-Based Undersampling. 2015 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K), Lisbon, 12-14 November 2015, 226-234. >https://doi.org/10.5220/0005595502260234 Bekkar, M. and Alitouche, T.A. (2013) Imbalanced Data Learning Approaches Review. International Journal of Data Mining&Knowledge Management Process, 3, 15-33. >https://doi.org/10.5121/ijdkp.2013.3402 Lundberg, S.M. and Lee, S.-I. (2017) A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, 4-9 December 2017, 4768-4777. Kaur, H., Nori, H., Jenkins, S., Caruana, R., Wallach, H. and Wortman Vaughan, J. (2020) Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists’ Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, 25-30 April 2020, 1-14. >https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376219 Tougui, I., Jilbab, A. and Mhamdi, J.E. (2021) Impact of the Choice of Cross-Validation Techniques on the Results of Machine Learning-Based Diagnostic Applications. Healthcare Informatics Research, 27, 189-199. >https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2021.27.3.189 Raschka, S. (2018) Model Evaluation, Model Selection, and Algorithm Selection in Machine Learning. arXiv: 1811.12808 >https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.12808 Delgadillo, J., Moreea, O. and Lutz, W. (2016) Different People Respond Differently to Therapy: A Demonstration Using Patient Profiling and Risk Stratification. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 79, 15-22. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.02.003 Rea, K., Roche, M. and Finn, D.P. (2007) Supraspinal Modulation of Pain by Cannabinoids: The Role of GABA and Glutamate. British Journal of Pharmacology, 152, 633-648. >https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707440 Hofhuis, J.G., Spronk, P.E., van Stel, H.F., Schrijvers, A.J. and Bakker, J. (2007) Quality of Life before Intensive Care Unit Admission Is a Predictor of Survival. Critical Care, 11, Article No. R78. >https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5970 Khan, O., Badhiwala, J.H., Witiw, C.D., Wilson, J.R. and Fehlings, M.G. (2021) Machine Learning Algorithms for Prediction of Health-Related Quality-of-Life after Surgery for Mild Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. The Spine Journal, 21, 1659-1669. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.02.003 Labianca, R., Sarzi-Puttini, P., Zuccaro, S.M., Cherubino, P., Vellucci, R. and Fornasari, D. (2012) Adverse Effects Associated with Non-Opioid and Opioid Treatment in Patients with Chronic Pain. Clinical Drug Investigation, 32, 53-63. >https://doi.org/10.2165/11630080-000000000-00000 Tucker, A., Wang, Z., Rotalinti, Y. and Myles, P. (2020) Generating High-Fidelity Synthetic Patient Data for Assessing Machine Learning Healthcare Software. npj Digital Medicine, 3, Article No. 147. >https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-00353-9 El Emam, K., Mosquera, L. and Hoptroff, R. (2020) Practical Synthetic Data Generation: Balancing Privacy and the Broad Availability of Data. O’Reilly Media. Paul, A.K., Smith, C.M., Rahmatullah, M., Nissapatorn, V., Wilairatana, P., Spetea, M., et al. (2021) Opioid Analgesia and Opioid-Induced Adverse Effects: A Review. Pharmaceuticals, 14, Article 1091. >https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14111091 Shi, Y. and Wu, W. (2023) Multimodal Non-Invasive Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Chronic Pain: Mechanisms and Progress. BMC Medicine, 21, Article No. 372. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03076-2 Sud, A., Buchman, D.Z., Furlan, A.D., Selby, P., Spithoff, S.M. and Upshur, R.E.G. (2022) Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical-Population Health Interface. American Journal of Public Health, 112, S56-S65. >https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2021.306500