Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36527604›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2023

The Utility of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water: Promise, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Xindi C Hu, Mona Dai, Jennifer M Sun, Elsie M Sunderland

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A data-driven approach to identifying PFAS water sampling priorities in Colorado, United States.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Drinking Water Quality Assessment Using a Fuzzy Inference System Method: A Case Study of Rome (Italy).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xindi C HuMathematica, Inc., 505 14Th St, #800, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA. chu@mathematica-mpr.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4299-3931
Mona DaiHarvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3724-7675
Jennifer M SunHarvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9985-0408
Elsie M SunderlandHarvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0386-9548
Harvard University · USMathematica Policy Research · US

Funding

Spatial patterns of metals and metal mixtures in drinking waterP42ES030990 · NIEHS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI ZIMMERMAN, JULIE · 2020 to 2024
$8.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES030990
6 · The paper itself

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

Drinking WaterGroundwaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalEnvironmental MonitoringHumansMachine LearningNitratesUnited StatesWater QualityDrinking WaterNitratesWater Pollutants, ChemicalDrinking waterHealth-based standardsHeavy metalsMachine learningRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID36527604
PMCPMC9883334
OpenAlexW4311702421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.