Potential Confounders in the Analysis of Brazilian Adolescent's Health: A Combination of Machine Learning and Graph Theory

Fractal Nature Bridge between Neural Networks and Graph Theory Approach within Material Structure Characterization

Many recently published research papers examine the representation of nanostructures and biomimetic materials, especially using mathematical methods. For this purpose, it is important that the mathematical method is simple and powerful. Theory of fractals, artificial neural networks and graph theory are most commonly used in such papers. These methods are useful tools for applying mathematics in nanostructures, especially given the diversity of the methods, as well as their compatibility and complementarity. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of existing results in the field of electrochemical and magnetic nanostructures parameter modeling by applying the three methods that are “easy to use”: theory of fractals, artificial neural networks and graph theory. We also give some new conclusions about applicability, advantages and disadvantages in various different circumstances.

A scoping review on the use of machine learning in research on social determinants of health: Trends and research prospects

Background

Machine learning (ML) has spread rapidly from computer science to several disciplines. Given the predictive capacity of ML, it offers new opportunities for health, behavioral, and social scientists. However, it remains unclear how and to what extent ML is being used in studies of social determinants of health (SDH).

Methods

Using four search engines, we conducted a scoping review of studies that used ML to study SDH (published before May 1, 2020). Two independent reviewers analyzed the relevant studies. For each study, we identified the research questions, Results, data, and algorithms. We synthesized our findings in a narrative report.

Results

Of the initial 8097 hits, we identified 82 relevant studies. The number of publications has risen during the past decade. More than half of the studies (n = 46) used US data. About 80% (n = 66) utilized surveys, and 70% (n = 57) employed ML for common prediction tasks. Although the number of studies in ML and SDH is growing rapidly, only a few studies used ML to improve causal inference, curate data, or identify social bias in predictions (i.e., algorithmic fairness).

Conclusions

While ML equips researchers with new ways to measure health outcomes and their determinants from non-conventional sources such as text, audio, and image data, most studies still rely on traditional surveys. Although there are no guarantees that ML will lead to better social epidemiological research, the potential for innovation in SDH research is evident as a result of harnessing the predictive power of ML for causality, data curation, or algorithmic fairness.