ArticleNursing & health sciences2026
Machine Learning in Causal Effect Estimation and Causal Evaluation of ML-Enabled Interventions in Nursing-Related Research: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing & health sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) informs nursing practice, but prediction cannot establish intervention or workflow effects. Aim To map ML use within causal effect estimation and causal evaluations of ML-enabled interventions in nursing and midwifery. Eight electronic sources were searched for reports published January 2015-June 2026, followed by backward citation searching. Eligibility required a causal estimand, corresponding identification strategy, substantive ML role, and nursing or midwifery relevance. Two reviewers independently screened records and full texts. Fifteen studies (17 reports) were included. Five addressed acute deterioration or sepsis; others covered care prioritization, falls, post-discharge care, and nurse- or midwife-led services. Five used ML within causal effect estimation to examine longitudinal and spillover effects, treatment-effect heterogeneity, and targeting strategies. Ten evaluated ML-enabled interventions or workflows; reported favorable effects on mortality, care escalation, message-review time, and nursing processes, while several controlled estimates were null or imprecise. Evidence remains small and methodologically uneven. Future studies should align estimands, identification strategies, analytic methods, and workflows and evaluate model-plus-workflow effects on nursing processes and patient outcomes.
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.