ArticleIEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence2025
Systematic Bias of Machine Learning Regression Models and Correction.
Article in IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Lower Regression Error Mean Stronger Forensic Evidence? Machine Learning Regression Versus Demirjian and Willems Methods for Dental Age Estimation at 12- and 15-Year Legal Thresholds.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-predicted ECG age gap as a biomarker: bias-adjusted correlation with mortality and cardiovascular risk factors.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based analysis of the impact of 5' untranslated region on protein expression.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning models for continuous outcomes often yield systematically biased predictions, particularly for values that largely deviate from the mean. Specifically, predictions for large-valued outcomes tend to be negatively biased (underestimating actual values), while those for small-valued outcomes are positively biased (overestimating actual values). We refer to this linear central tendency warped bias as the "systematic bias of machine learning regression". In this paper, we first demonstrate that this systematic prediction bias persists across various machine learning regression models, and then delve into its theoretical underpinnings. To address this issue, we propose a general constrained optimization approach designed to correct this bias and develop computationally efficient implementation algorithms. Simulation results indicate that our correction method effectively eliminates the bias from the predicted outcomes. We apply the proposed approach to the prediction of brain age using neuroimaging data. In comparison to competing machine learning regression models, our method effectively addresses the longstanding issue of "systematic bias of machine learning regression" in neuroimaging-based brain age calculation, yielding unbiased predictions of brain age.
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.