Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42646965›Full record

ReviewToxics2026

Applications of Machine Learning in the Research of Heavy Metal(loid)s-Related Risk: A Scoping Review of Methodology.

Zhuang Liu, Yonghai Gan, Chengcheng Ding, Zheng Wang, Jiabao Yan, Rujiao Tan, Yang Li, Jun Luo, Yibin Cui

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxics, 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

9 authors.

Zhuang LiuNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.ORCID 0009-0008-5883-0652
Yonghai GanNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.
Chengcheng DingNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.
Zheng WangNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.
Jiabao YanNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5708-1476
Rujiao TanTianjin Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute, Tianjin 300392, China.
Yang LiUnmanned System Research Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an 710129, China.
Jun LuoNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.
Yibin CuiNanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Nanjing 210042, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 22206134National Science and Technology Major Project 2025ZD1206802
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid expansion of machine learning applications in heavy metal risk research has generated a large but fragmented body of literature, necessitating a systematic summary of various methodologies. This survey examines 182 research articles from Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore over the past 10 years, providing a comprehensive analysis of the application of prevalent machine learning algorithms across research areas related to heavy metal risks, covering more than 30 algorithms and 9 research areas. The results show that regional risk assessment, risk source analysis, risk driver analysis, and research on the pathogenicity of HMs are the four most frequently applied areas of machine learning, accounting for 80.06% of all applications. Classical machine learning, especially a series of tree-based algorithms, dominates across all applications, accounting for 69.93% and 42.74%, respectively. In addition, some auxiliary algorithms, particularly those for feature analysis, are often used in conjunction with machine learning, primarily to interpret model predictions and analyze risk sources or drivers. Three principal methodological challenges emerge from our review: (1) poor model generalizability across different environmental conditions; (2) insufficient reliability of predictions; and (3) difficulty in obtaining high-quality training data. Some current literature is also constrained by small sample sizes, regional bias, limited field validation, and insufficient integration of multi-omics data with machine learning pipelines. To address these gaps, we advocate for the routine adoption of explainable AI techniques with rigorous stability checks, the development of publicly available, field-validated benchmark datasets, and greater integration of mechanistic knowledge with data-driven models.

Indexed as

ecological riskheavy metalhuman health riskmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42646965
PMCPMC13517265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.