ArticleScientific reports2025
Pitfalls in using ML to predict cognitive function performance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning analyses are widely used for predicting cognitive abilities, yet there are pitfalls that need to be considered during their implementation and interpretation of the results. Hence, the present study aimed at drawing attention to the risks of erroneous conclusions incurred by confounding variables illustrated by a case example predicting executive function (EF) performance by prosodic features. Healthy participants (n = 231) performed speech tasks and EF tests. From 264 prosodic features, we predicted EF performance using 66 variables, controlling for confounding effects of age, sex, and education. A reasonable prediction performance was apparently achieved for EF variables of the Trail Making Test. However, in-depth analyses revealed indications of confound leakage, leading to inflated prediction accuracies, due to a strong relationship between confounds and targets. These findings highlight the need to control confounding variables in ML pipelines and caution against potential pitfalls in ML predictions.
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.