Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42325306›Full record

ReviewAnnals of vascular diseases2026

Machine Learning Is Not Just for Prediction: Its Role as an Exploratory Analytical Tool in Medicine.

Sei Komatsu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of vascular diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sei KomatsuDepartment of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Center, Osaka Gyoumeikan Hospital, Osaka, Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has been primarily used for predictive modeling in medical research, but this reflects only part of its potential. This review proposes a conceptual distinction between predictive ML and exploratory ML. Predictive ML aims to maximize accuracy on unseen data. Exploratory ML focuses on identifying underlying structures in data to generate hypotheses. Exploratory ML plays an important role under conditions where conventional hypothesis-driven statistics have limitations, including high-dimensional data, small sample sizes, and biopsy-inaccessible organs such as the vascular system. Because ML-derived results are based on associations rather than causality, they should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Methods including unsupervised learning, interpretable supervised learning, and network analysis are discussed as exploratory ML approaches. The differences in objectives and evaluation criteria between exploratory ML and conventional hypothesis-driven statistics are also discussed, together with the structural gap in peer review. The key argument is that studies using exploratory ML should be evaluated not by predictive performance but by the stability, reproducibility, and interpretability of the identified structures. Without this shift, exploratory analyses may be systematically misjudged within current evaluation standards. This perspective may bridge exploratory analysis and confirmatory research and support new study designs in medicine.

Indexed as

exploratory analytical toolshypothesis generationmachine learningmedical statistics

Identifiers

PMID42325306
PMCPMC13279870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.