ArticleMachine learning with applications2025
Regularized regression outperforms trees for predicting cognitive function in the Health and Retirement Study.
Article in Machine learning with applications, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Generalized linear models have been favored in healthcare research due to their interpretability. In contrast, tree-based models, such as random forest or boosted trees, are often preferred in machine learning (ML) and commercial settings due to their strong predictive performance. However, for clinical applications, model interpretability remains essential for actionable results and patient understanding. This study used ML to detect cognitive decline for the purpose of timely screening and uncovering associations with psychosocial determinants. All models were interpreted to enhance transparency and understanding of their predictions. Methods: Data from the 2018 to 2020 Health and Retirement Study was used to create three linear regression models and three tree-based models. Ten percent of the sample was withheld for estimating performance, and model tuning used five-fold cross validation with two repeats. Survey frequency weights were applied during tuning, training, and final evaluation. Model performance was evaluated using RMSE and R Results: The elastic net model had the best performance (RMSE = 3.520, R Conclusion: Elastic net regression outperformed tree-based models, suggesting that cognitive outcomes may be best modeled with additive linear relationships. Its ability to remove correlated and weak predictors contributed to its balance of interpretability and predictive performance for this particular dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.