ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Predicting blood lead in Uruguayan children: Individual- vs neighborhood-level ensemble learners.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Exploration of Machine Learning Methods in Human Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting childhood blood lead levels (BLLs) has had mixed success, and it is unclear if individual- or neighborhood-level variables are most predictive. An ensemble machine learning (ML) approach to identify the most relevant predictors of BLL ≥2μg/dL in urban children was implemented. A cross-sectional sample of 603 children (~7 years of age) recruited between 2009-2019 from Montevideo, Uruguay participated in the study. 77 individual- and 32 neighborhood-level variables were used to predict BLLs ≥2μg/dL. Three ensemble learners were created: one with individual-level predictors (Ensemble-I), one with neighborhood-level predictors (Ensemble-N), and one with both (Ensemble-All). Each ensemble learner comprised four base classifiers with 50% training, 25% validation, and 25% test datasets. Predictive performance of the three ensemble models was compared using area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC), precision, sensitivity, and specificity on the test dataset. Ensemble-I (AUC: 0.75, precision: 0.56, sensitivity: 0.79, specificity: 0.65) performed similarly to Ensemble-All (AUC: 0.75, precision: 0.63, sensitivity: 0.79, specificity: 0.69). Ensemble-N (AUC: 0.51, precision: 0.0, sensitivity: 0.0, specificity: 0.50) severely underperformed. Year of enrollment was most important in Ensemble-I and Ensemble-All, followed by household water Pb. Three neighborhood-level variables were among the top 10 important predictors in Ensemble-All (density of bus routes, dwellings with stream/other water source and distance to nearest river). The individual-level only model performed best, although precision was improved when both neighborhood and individual-level variables were included. Future predictive models of lead exposure should consider proximal predictors (i.e., household characteristics).
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.