Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349278›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2018

Machine learning approaches to the social determinants of health in the health and retirement study.

Benjamin Seligman, Shripad Tuljapurkar, David Rehkopf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A review of geospatial exposure models and approaches for health data integration.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in precision and genomic medicine.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Benjamin SeligmanDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Shripad TuljapurkarDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
David RehkopfDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

Funding

Research Networks in Biodemography and Demography of AgingR24AG039345 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI TULJAPURKAR, SHRIPAD D. · 2010 to 2014
$1.2M
Life course contexts and work - quantifying impacts on aging and chronic diseaseK01AG047280 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI REHKOPF, DAVID H · 2014 to 2018
$632k
NIA NIH HHS R24 AG039345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial and economic factors are important predictors of health and of recognized importance for health systems. However, machine learning, used elsewhere in the biomedical literature, has not been extensively applied to study relationships between society and health. We investigate how machine learning may add to our understanding of social determinants of health using data from the Health and Retirement Study.

methodsA linear regression of age and gender, and a parsimonious theory-based regression additionally incorporating income, wealth, and education, were used to predict systolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, and telomere length. Prediction, fit, and interpretability were compared across four machine learning methods: linear regression, penalized regressions, random forests, and neural networks.

resultsAll models had poor out-of-sample prediction. Most machine learning models performed similarly to the simpler models. However, neural networks greatly outperformed the three other methods. Neural networks also had good fit to the data ( DISCUSSION: Some of the machine learning methods do not improve prediction or fit beyond simpler models, however, neural networks performed well. The predictors identified across models suggest underlying social factors that are important predictors of biological indicators of chronic disease, and that the non-linear and interactive relationships between variables fundamental to the neural network approach may be important to consider.

Indexed as

BiomarkersHealth and retirement studyMachine learningNeural networkSocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID29349278
PMCPMC5769116

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.