ArticleF1000Research2025
Utilizing Machine Learning and causal graph approaches to Address Confounding Factors in Health Science Research: A Scoping Review.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- BCG vaccination and household TB exposure in childhood tuberculosis: a community-based case-control study in rural Bangladesh.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Utilizing Machine Learning and causal graph approaches to Address Confounding Factors in Health Science Research: A Scoping Review.F1000Research · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Confounding can significantly distort the findings of studies examining cause-and-effect relationships, especially in etiological research. To mitigate this issue, researchers must carefully assess potential confounding variables that may relate to both the exposure and outcome but are not directly influenced by the exposure itself. It is essential that these variables truly impact the outcome rather than simply being correlated with the exposure to avoid false associations. Strengthening confidence in the actual relationship between exposure and outcome requires an understanding of biological mechanisms and the application of various methods to adjust for confounders. The oversight of confounding often arises from inappropriate statistical tests and the aggregation of data across multiple studies. This scoping review article discusses the challenges posed by confounding and presents machine learning approaches for effective control in health science research. Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) serve as causal graph tools to identify potential confounding variables in health research. By mapping presumed relationships between variables, DAGs enable researchers to estimate causal effects more accurately. While traditional methods such as randomization, matching, and stratification remain effective for controlling confounding, newer techniques like latent variable modeling with negative controls and machine learning methods such as LASSO, Ridge regression, and random forests offer enhanced flexibility and adaptability.
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.