Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40275204›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Exploring the potential and limitations of deep learning and explainable AI for longitudinal life course analysis.

Helen Coupland, Neil Scheidwasser, Alexandros Katsiferis, Megan Davies, Seth Flaxman, Naja Hulvej Rod, Swapnil Mishra, Samir Bhatt, H Juliette T Unwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

9 authors.

Helen Coupland *Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Neil ScheidwasserSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Alexandros KatsiferisSection of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Megan DaviesCopenhagen Health Complexity Center, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Seth FlaxmanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Naja Hulvej RodCopenhagen Health Complexity Center, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Swapnil Mishra *Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health & Institute of Data Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Samir Bhatt *Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. samir.bhatt@sund.ku.dk.
H Juliette T Unwin *MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

Danish National Research Foundation DNRF160Danish Research Council reference1030-00171BEPSRC EP/V002910/2European Research Council no. 101124807Independent Research Fund Project 1030-00171BMedical Research Council MR/X020258/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200908National Research Foundation Singapore NRF-NRFF15-2023-0010Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF20OC0059309Schmidt Family Foundation G-22-63345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the complex interplay between life course exposures, such as adverse childhood experiences and environmental factors, and disease risk is essential for developing effective public health interventions. Traditional epidemiological methods, such as regression models and risk scoring, are limited in their ability to capture the non-linear and temporally dynamic nature of these relationships. Deep learning (DL) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are increasingly applied within healthcare settings to identify influential risk factors and enable personalised interventions. However, significant gaps remain in understanding their utility and limitations, especially for sparse longitudinal life course data and how the influential patterns identified using explainability are linked to underlying causal mechanisms.

methodsWe conducted a controlled simulation study to assess the performance of various state-of-the-art DL architectures including CNNs and (attention-based) RNNs against XGBoost and logistic regression. Input data was simulated to reflect a generic and generalisable scenario with different rules used to generate multiple realistic outcomes based upon epidemiological concepts. Multiple metrics were used to assess model performance in the presence of class imbalance and SHAP values were calculated.

resultsWe find that DL methods can accurately detect dynamic relationships that baseline linear models and tree-based methods cannot. However, there is no one model that consistently outperforms the others across all scenarios. We further identify the superior performance of DL models in handling sparse feature availability over time compared to traditional machine learning approaches. Additionally, we examine the interpretability provided by SHAP values, demonstrating that these explanations often misalign with causal relationships, despite excellent predictive and calibrative performance.

conclusionsThese insights provide a foundation for future research applying DL and XAI to life course data, highlighting the challenges associated with sparse healthcare data, and the critical need for advancing interpretability frameworks in personalised public health.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDeep LearningHumansLongitudinal StudiesDeep learningExplainable artificial intelligenceLife course epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID40275204
PMCPMC12020094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.