ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2023
The Utility of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water: Promise, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Review in Current environmental health reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting PFAS Exposure Risks from Rural Private Wells Using Integrated Mechanistic and Machine-Learned Bayesian Network Models.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Enhancing PFAS data integrity: An LLM-based FAIR+Environmental principle for improved evaluation of environmental contaminants and related constituent databases.Journal of hazardous materials advances · 2026Article
- Psychological readiness for national examinations: study habits, anxiety, and motivation among secondary school students in Somaliland.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Mapping the Rise in Machine Learning in Environmental Chemical Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.Toxics · 2025Review
- Sociodemographic Disparities in Exposures to Inorganic Contaminants in United States Public Water Systems.Environmental health perspectives · 2025Article
- Application of Bioinformatics and Machine Learning Tools in Food Safety.Current nutrition reports · 2025Review
- A data-driven approach to identifying PFAS water sampling priorities in Colorado, United States.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Article
- Environmental Risk Assessment of Trace Metal Pollution: A Statistical Perspective.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2025Review
- Multiple Data Imputation Methods Advance Risk Analysis and Treatability of Co-occurring Inorganic Chemicals in Groundwater.Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- Drinking Water Quality Assessment Using a Fuzzy Inference System Method: A Case Study of Rome (Italy).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review aims to better understand the utility of machine learning algorithms for predicting spatial patterns of contaminants in the United States (U.S.) drinking water. RECENT
findingsWe found 27 U.S. drinking water studies in the past ten years that used machine learning algorithms to predict water quality. Most studies (42%) developed random forest classification models for groundwater. Continuous models show low predictive power, suggesting that larger datasets and additional predictors are needed. Categorical/classification models for arsenic and nitrate that predict exceedances of pollution thresholds are most common in the literature because of good national scale data coverage and priority as environmental health concerns. Most groundwater data used to develop models were obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS). Predictors were similar across contaminants but challenges are posed by the lack of a standard methodology for imputation, pre-processing, and differing availability of data across regions. We reviewed 27 articles that focused on seven drinking water contaminants. Good performance metrics were reported for binary models that classified chemical concentrations above a threshold value by finding significant predictors. Classification models are especially useful for assisting in the design of sampling efforts by identifying high-risk areas. Only a few studies have developed continuous models and obtaining good predictive performance for such models is still challenging. Improving continuous models is important for potential future use in epidemiological studies to supplement data gaps in exposure assessments for drinking water contaminants. While significant progress has been made over the past decade, methodological advances are still needed for selecting appropriate model performance metrics and accounting for spatial autocorrelations in data. Finally, improved infrastructure for code and data sharing would spearhead more rapid advances in machine-learning models for drinking water quality.
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.