Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37776368›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2022

Confound-leakage: confound removal in machine learning leads to leakage.

Sami Hamdan, Bradley C Love, Georg G von Polier, Susanne Weis, Holger Schwender, Simon B Eickhoff, Kaustubh R Patil

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exposome factors predict the association between sleep health and depression.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Current best practices and future opportunities for reproducible findings using large-scale neuroimaging in psychiatry.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  5. The effects of data leakage on connectome-based machine learning models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sami HamdanInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain and Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5072-542X
Bradley C LoveDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, WC1H 0AP London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7883-7076
Georg G von PolierInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain and Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2739-8528
Susanne WeisInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain and Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7726-6470
Holger SchwenderInstitute of Mathematics, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2858-6715
Simon B EickhoffInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain and Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6363-2759
Kaustubh R PatilInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine, Brain and Behaviour (INM-7), Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0289-5480
Forschungszentrum Jülich · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DETuring Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) approaches are a crucial component of modern data analysis in many fields, including epidemiology and medicine. Nonlinear ML methods often achieve accurate predictions, for instance, in personalized medicine, as they are capable of modeling complex relationships between features and the target. Problematically, ML models and their predictions can be biased by confounding information present in the features. To remove this spurious signal, researchers often employ featurewise linear confound regression (CR). While this is considered a standard approach for dealing with confounding, possible pitfalls of using CR in ML pipelines are not fully understood.

resultsWe provide new evidence that, contrary to general expectations, linear confound regression can increase the risk of confounding when combined with nonlinear ML approaches. Using a simple framework that uses the target as a confound, we show that information leaked via CR can increase null or moderate effects to near-perfect prediction. By shuffling the features, we provide evidence that this increase is indeed due to confound-leakage and not due to revealing of information. We then demonstrate the danger of confound-leakage in a real-world clinical application where the accuracy of predicting attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is overestimated using speech-derived features when using depression as a confound.

conclusionsMishandling or even amplifying confounding effects when building ML models due to confound-leakage, as shown, can lead to untrustworthy, biased, and unfair predictions. Our expose of the confound-leakage pitfall and provided guidelines for dealing with it can help create more robust and trustworthy ML models.

Indexed as

Machine Learningclinical applicationsconfoundingdata-leakagemachine-learning

Identifiers

PMID37776368
PMCPMC10541796
OpenAlexW4387210595

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.