ReviewToxics2026
Applications of Machine Learning in the Research of Heavy Metal(loid)s-Related Risk: A Scoping Review of Methodology.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.