ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021
Machine learning analysis of non-marital sexual violence in India.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Using machine learning to understand determinants of IUD use in India: Analyses of the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS-4).SSM - population health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning techniques can explore low prevalence data to offer insight into identification of factors associated with non-marital sexual violence (NMSV). NMSV in India is a health and human rights concern that disproportionately affects adolescents, is under-reported, and not well understood or addressed in the country.
methodsWe applied machine learning methods to retrospective cross-sectional data from India's nationally-representative National Family Health Survey 4, a demographic and health study conducted in 2015-16, which offers 4000+ variables as potential independent variables. We used Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (lasso) or L-1 regularized logistic regression models as well as L-2 regularized logistic regression or ridge models; we conducted an iterative thematic analysis (ITA) of variables generated from a series of regularized models.
findingsThematic analysis of regularized models highlight that past exposure to violence was most predictive of NMSV, followed by geography, sexual behavior, and poor sexual and reproductive health knowledge. After these, indicators largely related to resources and autonomy (e.g., access to health services, and income generating) were associated with NMSV. Exploratory analysis with the subsample of never married adolescents 15-19 years old, a population with higher representation of recent NMSV, further emphasized the role of wealth and mobility as key correlates of NMSV, along with poor HIV knowledge, tobacco use, higher fertility preferences, and attitudes accepting of marital violence.
interpretationFindings indicate the validity of machine learning with iterative theme analysis (ITA) to identify factors associated with violence. Findings were consistent with prior work demonstrating associations between NMSV and other violence experiences, but also showed novel correlates such as lower SRH knowledge and service utilization and, for girls, norms and preferences suggesting more restrictive gender norms. Sexual and reproductive health, gender equity and safety focused interventions are important for addressing NMSV in India, particularly for adolescents.
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.