伪随机数生成器对机器学习获得的平均治疗效果估计值的影响》(Pseudo-Random Number Generator Influences on Average Treatment Effect Estimates obtained with Machine Learning)。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001785
Ashley I Naimi, Ya-Hui Yu, Lisa M Bodnar
{"title":"伪随机数生成器对机器学习获得的平均治疗效果估计值的影响》(Pseudo-Random Number Generator Influences on Average Treatment Effect Estimates obtained with Machine Learning)。","authors":"Ashley I Naimi, Ya-Hui Yu, Lisa M Bodnar","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of machine learning to estimate exposure effects introduces a dependence between the results of an empirical study and the value of the seed used to fix the pseudo-random number generator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from 10,038 pregnant women and a 10% subsample (N = 1004) to examine the extent to which the risk difference for the relation between fruit and vegetable consumption and preeclampsia risk changes under different seed values. We fit an augmented inverse probability weighted estimator with two Super Learner algorithms: a simple algorithm including random forests and single-layer neural networks and a more complex algorithm with a mix of tree-based, regression-based, penalized, and simple algorithms. We evaluated the distributions of risk differences, standard errors, and P values that result from 5000 different seed value selections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings suggest important variability in the risk difference estimates, as well as an important effect of the stacking algorithm used. The interquartile range width of the risk differences in the full sample with the simple algorithm was 13 per 1000. However, all other interquartile ranges were roughly an order of magnitude lower. The medians of the distributions of risk differences differed according to the sample size and the algorithm used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings add another dimension of concern regarding the potential for \"p-hacking,\" and further warrant the need to move away from simplistic evidentiary thresholds in empirical research. When empirical results depend on pseudo-random number generator seed values, caution is warranted in interpreting these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"779-786"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pseudo-random Number Generator Influences on Average Treatment Effect Estimates Obtained with Machine Learning.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley I Naimi, Ya-Hui Yu, Lisa M Bodnar\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of machine learning to estimate exposure effects introduces a dependence between the results of an empirical study and the value of the seed used to fix the pseudo-random number generator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from 10,038 pregnant women and a 10% subsample (N = 1004) to examine the extent to which the risk difference for the relation between fruit and vegetable consumption and preeclampsia risk changes under different seed values. We fit an augmented inverse probability weighted estimator with two Super Learner algorithms: a simple algorithm including random forests and single-layer neural networks and a more complex algorithm with a mix of tree-based, regression-based, penalized, and simple algorithms. We evaluated the distributions of risk differences, standard errors, and P values that result from 5000 different seed value selections.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings suggest important variability in the risk difference estimates, as well as an important effect of the stacking algorithm used. The interquartile range width of the risk differences in the full sample with the simple algorithm was 13 per 1000. However, all other interquartile ranges were roughly an order of magnitude lower. The medians of the distributions of risk differences differed according to the sample size and the algorithm used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings add another dimension of concern regarding the potential for \\\"p-hacking,\\\" and further warrant the need to move away from simplistic evidentiary thresholds in empirical research. When empirical results depend on pseudo-random number generator seed values, caution is warranted in interpreting these results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"779-786\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560583/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001785\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001785","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用机器学习估算暴露效应会在实证研究结果与用于固定伪随机数生成器的种子值之间引入一种依赖关系:我们使用了来自 10,038 名孕妇和 10% 的子样本(N = 1,004)的数据,研究了在不同的种子值下,水果和蔬菜摄入量与子痫前期风险之间的风险差异变化程度。我们用两种超级学习器算法拟合了一个增强的反概率加权估计器:一种是包括随机森林和单层神经网络的简单算法,另一种是混合了基于树、基于回归、惩罚算法和简单算法的更复杂算法。我们评估了 5000 个不同种子值的风险差异、标准误差和 p 值的分布情况:结果:我们的研究结果表明,风险差异估计值存在很大差异,所使用的堆叠算法也有重要影响。在使用简单算法的全样本中,风险差异的四分位数范围宽度(IQRw)为 13‰。然而,所有其他的 IQR 都低了大约一个数量级。风险差异分布的中位数因样本量和所用算法而异:我们的发现为 "p-黑客 "的可能性增添了新的担忧,并进一步证明了在实证研究中摒弃简单的证据阈值的必要性。当实证结果依赖于伪随机数生成器种子值时,在解释这些结果时必须谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pseudo-random Number Generator Influences on Average Treatment Effect Estimates Obtained with Machine Learning.

Background: The use of machine learning to estimate exposure effects introduces a dependence between the results of an empirical study and the value of the seed used to fix the pseudo-random number generator.

Methods: We used data from 10,038 pregnant women and a 10% subsample (N = 1004) to examine the extent to which the risk difference for the relation between fruit and vegetable consumption and preeclampsia risk changes under different seed values. We fit an augmented inverse probability weighted estimator with two Super Learner algorithms: a simple algorithm including random forests and single-layer neural networks and a more complex algorithm with a mix of tree-based, regression-based, penalized, and simple algorithms. We evaluated the distributions of risk differences, standard errors, and P values that result from 5000 different seed value selections.

Results: Our findings suggest important variability in the risk difference estimates, as well as an important effect of the stacking algorithm used. The interquartile range width of the risk differences in the full sample with the simple algorithm was 13 per 1000. However, all other interquartile ranges were roughly an order of magnitude lower. The medians of the distributions of risk differences differed according to the sample size and the algorithm used.

Conclusions: Our findings add another dimension of concern regarding the potential for "p-hacking," and further warrant the need to move away from simplistic evidentiary thresholds in empirical research. When empirical results depend on pseudo-random number generator seed values, caution is warranted in interpreting these results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
期刊最新文献
Adjusting adjustments: Using external data to estimate the impact of different confounder sets on published associations. Low-level PM2.5 exposure, Cardiovascular and Non-accidental Mortality, and Related Health Disparities in 12 U.S. States. A structural description of biases that generate immortal time. Associations Between Gestational Residential Radon Exposure and Term Low Birthweight in Connecticut, USA. Prenatal Exposure to Nonpersistent Chemicals and Fetal-to-childhood Growth Trajectories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1