Machine learning used to study risk factors for chronic diseases: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Machine learning (ML) has received significant attention for its potential to process and learn from vast amounts of data. Our aim was to perform a scoping review to identify studies that used ML to study risk factors for chronic diseases at a population level, notably those that incorporated methods to mitigate algorithmic bias. We focused on ML applications for the most common risk factors for chronic disease: tobacco use, alcohol use, unhealthy eating, physical activity, and psychological stress. METHODS: We searched the peer-reviewed, indexed literature using Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Scopus, ACM Digital Library, INSPEC, and Web of Science's Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Emerging Sources Citation Index. Among the included studies, we examined whether bias was considered and identified strategies employed to mitigate bias. SYNTHESIS: The search identified 10,329 studies, and 20 met our inclusion criteria. The studies we identified used ML for a wide range of goals, from prediction of chronic disease development to automating the classification of data to identifying new associations between risk factors and disease. Nine studies (45%) included some discussion of algorithmic bias. Studies that incorporated a broad array of sociodemographic variables did so primarily to improve the performance of a ML model rather than to mitigate potential harms to populations made vulnerable by social and economic policies. CONCLUSION: This work contributes to our understanding of how ML can be used to advance population and public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".