ArticleScientific reports2026
Supervised learning for predicting unknown modifying variables in pliable lasso.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate outcome prediction often requires modeling complex interactions between input features and context-specific modifiers. The pliable lasso is a flexible regression framework that integrates such modifiers into the prediction process. In many real-world applications, however, these modifiers are unobserved at test time and must be estimated. This study investigates the performance of eight supervised machine learning algorithms for estimating the modifier matrix Z in a pliable lasso model under a known-to-unknown scenario. The analysis considers both classification accuracy for modifier estimation and regression accuracy for the final response prediction, using simulated data and two relevant real-world datasets: the Superconductivity dataset and the Mice Protein Expression dataset. Results indicate that tree-based ensemble models (e.g., XGBoost, Random Forest, and Decision Tree) deliver superior modifier classification (AUC > 0.99), while regularized models such as Lasso and Elastic Net achieve the best regression performance. The findings support a hybrid modeling approach in which tree-based classifiers estimate modifying variables, followed by regularized regression for accurate and interpretable 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.