ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Resolving Interpretation Challenges in Machine Learning Feature Selection With an Iterative Approach in Biomedical Pain Data.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. 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.
- Risk Phenotyping Before Graft Implantation: FTIR Spectroscopy and Machine Learning for Complementary Risk Stratification in Kidney Transplantation.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Resolving Interpretation Challenges in Machine Learning Feature Selection With an Iterative Approach in Biomedical Pain Data.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) is increasingly used to analyse pain-related data, emphasising how well variables classify individuals, that is, training an algorithm to assign people to predefined groups such as high versus low pain sensitivity, rather than focusing on p-values. A challenge arises when accurate classification persists after removing variables identified as important by feature-selection methods. This creates uncertainty about which factors are genuinely relevant to the trait of interest, as classification information may still reside in the remaining features.
methodsAn iterative ML framework is presented that repeatedly tests groups of variables, combining two established feature-selection techniques with several classification algorithms. The approach was applied to three datasets, two assessing pain traits and one artificial, and compared with classical statistical methods, including logistic regression.
resultsThe iterative process clarified which variables were truly relevant for classification by assessing whether unselected features could still discriminate individuals. When they could not, selected variables became more interpretable in a biological context. Combining multiple ML approaches improved feature selection, addressed multicollinearity and enhanced robustness across models. Logistic regression sometimes required preselected inputs or missed known relevant variables. Variation in model performance increased interpretive complexity.
conclusionsML-based feature selection broadens methodological options for identifying trait-relevant variables. Iterating through variable sets supports transparent, replicable inference. ML can help identify variables related to pain traits, but selected features should not be assumed uniquely important. Testing unselected variables remains essential, as their failure to predict outcomes may reflect algorithmic limitations rather than definitive trait exclusivity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study presents an iterative machine learning framework that improves the identification of trait-relevant features in biomedical pain data. This framework reduces ambiguity in feature selection and clarifies interpretation, helping to distinguish robust, meaningful predictors from coincidental ones. This approach enhances the interpretation and transparency of machine learning analyses in pain research and related biomedical fields.
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.