Use of a Doubly Robust Machine-Learning-Based Approach to Evaluate Body Mass Index as a Modifier of the Association Between Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Preeclampsia

Does heterogeneity underlie differences in treatment effects estimated from SuperLearner versus logistic regression? An application in nutritional epidemiology

PURPOSE

A strength of SuperLearner is that it may accommodate key interactions between model variables without a priori specification. In prior research, protective associations between fruit intake and preeclampsia were stronger when estimated using SuperLearner with targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) compared with multivariable logistic regression without any interaction terms. We explored whether heterogeneity (i.e., differences in the effect estimate due to interactions between fruit intake and covariates) may partly explain differences in estimates from these two models.

METHODS

Using a U.S. prospective pregnancy cohort (2010-2013, n = 7781), we estimated preeclampsia risk differences (RDs) for higher versus lower fruit density using multivariable logistic regression and included two-way statistical interactions between fruit density and each of the 25 model covariates. We compared the RDs with those from SuperLearner with TMLE (gold standard) and logistic regression with no interaction.

RESULTS

From the logistic regression models with two-way statistical interactions, 48% of the preeclampsia RDs were ≤-0.02 (closer to SuperLearner with TMLE estimate); 40% equaled -0.01 (same as logistic regression with no interaction estimate); the minority of RDs were at or crossed the null.

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory analysis provided preliminary evidence that heterogeneity may partly explain differences in estimates from logistic regression versus SuperLearner with TMLE.

Mapping of machine learning approaches for description, prediction, and causal inference in the social and health sciences

Machine learning (ML) methodology used in the social and health sciences needs to fit the intended research purposes of description, prediction, or causal inference. This paper provides a comprehensive, systematic meta-mapping of research questions in the social and health sciences to appropriate ML approaches by incorporating the necessary requirements to statistical analysis in these disciplines. We map the established classification into description, prediction, counterfactual prediction, and causal structural learning to common research goals, such as estimating prevalence of adverse social or health outcomes, predicting the risk of an event, and identifying risk factors or causes of adverse outcomes, and explain common ML performance metrics. Such mapping may help to fully exploit the benefits of ML while considering domain-specific aspects relevant to the social and health sciences and hopefully contribute to the acceleration of the uptake of ML applications to advance both basic and applied social and health sciences research.