ArticleScientific reports2025
Gender effects and racial biases in mate selection as revealed by machine learning.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the potential role of machine learning (ML) technology for predicting a match, or mutual interest, in the context of speed dating. Modern machine learning technologies (light gradient boosting machine - lgbm, random forest, logistic regression, stochastic gradient descent, k nearest neighbour), exhaustively combined with feature selection methods (filter-based association, filter-based prediction, embedded lgbm, embedded linear, redundancy aware step up wrapper), were applied to a speed dating dataset, and tasked with predicting a match (mutual interest from speed dating participants). Our analysis employed public-domain ML software combined with a public-domain dataset, supporting reproducibility of study findings. Results indicate that ML models can predict a match with 85.4 to 86.4% accuracy. The creation of ethical ML applications in this domain, including those blinded to issues of race, and specific to each gender, are explored as part of this analysis. Results also demonstrate that it is possible to create race-blinded ML models with approximately equal performance to those biased by racial information, thus supporting the creation of more ethical, inclusive, and behavior-focused technologies.
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.