ArticleScientific reports2023
Discriminative machine learning for maximal representative subsampling.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feature-weighted maximum representative subsampling.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the reliability of markerless tumor tracking with single-energy and dual-energy imaging using machine learning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Biased population samples pose a prevalent problem in the social sciences. Therefore, we present two novel methods that are based on positive-unlabeled learning to mitigate bias. Both methods leverage auxiliary information from a representative data set and train machine learning classifiers to determine the sample weights. The first method, named maximum representative subsampling (MRS), uses a classifier to iteratively remove instances, by assigning a sample weight of 0, from the biased data set until it aligns with the representative one. The second method is a variant of MRS - Soft-MRS - that iteratively adapts sample weights instead of removing samples completely. To assess the effectiveness of our approach, we induced artificial bias in a public census data set and examined the corrected estimates. We compare the performance of our methods against existing techniques, evaluating the ability of sample weights created with Soft-MRS or MRS to minimize differences and improve downstream classification tasks. Lastly, we demonstrate the applicability of the proposed methods in a real-world study of resilience research, exploring the influence of resilience on voting behavior. Through our work, we address the issue of bias in social science, amongst others, and provide a versatile methodology for bias reduction based on machine learning. Based on our experiments, we recommend to use MRS for downstream classification tasks and Soft-MRS for downstream tasks where the relative bias of the dependent variable is relevant.
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.