Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40000735›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Using machine learning to explore the efficacy of administrative variables in prediction of subjective-wellbeing outcomes in New Zealand.

Anantha Narayanan, Tom Stewart, Scott Duncan, Gail Pacheco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Anantha NarayananSchool of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Tom StewartSchool of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. tom.stewart@aut.ac.nz.
Scott DuncanSchool of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Gail PachecoFaculty of Business, Economics and Law, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing acknowledgment of population wellbeing as a key indicator of societal prosperity has propelled governments worldwide to devise policies aimed at improving their citizens' overall wellbeing. In New Zealand, the General Social Survey provides wellbeing metrics for a representative subset of the population (~ 10,000 individuals). However, this sample size only provides a surface-level understanding of the country's wellbeing landscape, limiting our ability to comprehensively assess the impacts of governmental policies, particularly on smaller subgroups who may be of high policy interest. To overcome this challenge, comprehensive population-level wellbeing data is imperative. Leveraging New Zealand's Integrated Data Infrastructure, this study developed and validated the efficacy of three predictive models-Stepwise Linear Regression, Elastic Net Regression, and Random Forest-for predicting subjective wellbeing outcomes (life satisfaction, life worthwhileness, family wellbeing, and mental wellbeing) using census-level administrative variables as predictors. Our results demonstrated the Random Forest model's effectiveness in predicting subjective wellbeing, reflected in low RMSE values (~ 1.5). Nonetheless, the models exhibited low R

Indexed as

Machine LearningMental HealthPersonal SatisfactionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandQuality of LifeAdministrative dataCensusMachine learningPredictive modelsSubjective wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID40000735
PMCPMC11861262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.