ArticleChina CDC weekly2024
Applying Machine Learning Approach to Explore Childhood Circumstances and Self-Rated Health in Old Age - China and the US, 2020-2021.
Article in China CDC weekly, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Childhood circumstances impact senior health, prompting the introduction of machine learning methods to assess their individual and collective contributions to senior health. Methods: Using health and retirement study (HRS) and China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we analyzed 2,434 American and 5,612 Chinese participants aged 60 and above. Conditional inference trees and forests were employed to estimate the influence of childhood circumstances on self-rated health (SRH). Results: The conventional method estimated higher inequality of opportunity (IOP) values in both China (0.039, accounting for 22.67% of the total Gini coefficient 0.172) and the US (0.067, accounting for 35.08% of the total Gini coefficient 0.191). In contrast, the conditional inference tree yielded lower estimates (China: 0.022, accounting for 12.79% of 0.172; US: 0.044, accounting for 23.04% of 0.191), as did the forest (China: 0.035, accounting for 20.35% of 0.172; US: 0.054, accounting for 28.27% of 0.191). Childhood health, financial status, and regional differences were key determinants of senior health. The conditional inference forest consistently outperformed others in predictive accuracy, as demonstrated by lower out-of-sample mean squared error (MSE). Discussion: The findings emphasize the need for early-life interventions to promote health equity in aging populations. Machine learning showcases the potential in identifying contributing factors.
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.