HTML
FootNote
① |
|
Citation: |
Childhood circumstances impact senior health, prompting the introduction of machine learning methods to assess their individual and collective contributions to senior health.
Using health and retirement study (HRS) and China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we analyzed 2,434 American and 5,612 Chinese participants aged 60 and above. Conditional inference trees and forests were employed to estimate the influence of childhood circumstances on self-rated health (SRH).
The conventional method estimated higher inequality of opportunity (IOP) values in both China (0.039, accounting for 22.67% of the total Gini coefficient 0.172) and the US (0.067, accounting for 35.08% of the total Gini coefficient 0.191). In contrast, the conditional inference tree yielded lower estimates (China: 0.022, accounting for 12.79% of 0.172; US: 0.044, accounting for 23.04% of 0.191), as did the forest (China: 0.035, accounting for 20.35% of 0.172; US: 0.054, accounting for 28.27% of 0.191). Childhood health, financial status, and regional differences were key determinants of senior health. The conditional inference forest consistently outperformed others in predictive accuracy, as demonstrated by lower out-of-sample mean squared error (MSE).
The findings emphasize the need for early-life interventions to promote health equity in aging populations. Machine learning showcases the potential in identifying contributing factors.
① |
|
[1] | Moffitt TE, Belsky DW, Danese A, Poulton R, Caspi A. The longitudinal study of aging in human young adults: knowledge gaps and research agenda. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2017;72(2):210 − 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glw191CrossRef |
[2] | Bor J, Cohen GH, Galea S. Population health in an era of rising income inequality: USA, 1980-2015. Lancet 2017;389(10077):1475 − 90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30571-8CrossRef |
[3] | Carrieri V, Jones AM. Inequality of opportunity in health: a decomposition-based approach. Health Econ 2018;27(12):1981 − 95. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3814CrossRef |
[4] | Moody-Ayers S, Lindquist K, Sen S, Covinsky KE. Childhood social and economic well-being and health in older age. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166(9):1059 − 67. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm185CrossRef |
[5] | Strauss J, Witoelar F, Meng QQ, Chen XX, Zhao YH, Sikoki B, et al. Cognition and SES relationships among the mid-aged and elderly: a comparison of China and Indonesia. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2018 May Report No.: 24583. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24583. |
[6] | Isen A, Rossin-Slater M, Walker WR. Every breath you take—every dollar you’ll make: the long-term consequences of the clean air act of 1970. J Polit Econ 2017;125(3):848 − 902. https://doi.org/10.1086/691465CrossRef |
[7] | Roemer JE. Equality of opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1998; p. 130. |
[8] | Roemer JE, Trannoy A. Equality of opportunity: theory and measurement. J Econ Lit 2016;54(4):1288 − 332. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151206CrossRef |
[9] | Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S, Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008;372(9650):1661 − 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6CrossRef |
[10] | Brunori P, Hufe P, Mahler D. The roots of inequality: estimating inequality of opportunity from regression trees and forests. Scand J Econ 2023;125(4):900 − 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12530CrossRef |
[11] | Ferreira FHG, Gignoux J. The measurement of inequality of opportunity: theory and an application to Latin America. Rev Income Wealth 2011;57(4):622 − 57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2011.00467.xCrossRef |
[12] | Hufe P, Peichl A, Roemer J, Ungerer M. Inequality of income acquisition: the role of childhood circumstances. Soc Choice Welf 2017;49(3):499 − 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1044-xCrossRef |
[13] | Ferreira FHG, Gignoux J. The measurement of educational inequality: achievement and opportunity. World Bank Econ Rev 2014;28(2):210 − 46. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lht004CrossRef |
[14] | Qi YJ. Random forest for bioinformatics. In: Zhang C, Ma YQ, editors. Ensemble machine learning: methods and applications. New York: Springer. 2012; p. 307-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9326-7_11. |
[15] | Schneider J, Hapfelmeier A, Thöres S, Obermeier A, Schulz C, Pförringer D, et al. Mortality Risk for Acute Cholangitis (MAC): a risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute cholangitis. BMC Gastroenterol 2016;16(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-016-0428-1CrossRef |
FIGURE 1. Correlation of estimates by method.
Note: The plot shows the estimates using each method (i.e., the conventional parametric Roemer method and the conditional inference trees) against the estimates from conditional inference forest. The x-axis represents the scale of Gini coefficients for the forest method. The Gini coefficients range between 0 and 1. The larger the more unequal. The y-axis represents the scale of Gini coefficients for the Roemer method and tree methods. The black diagonal indicates the 45-degree line, on which all data points should align if the different methods were perfectly congruent. This plot confirms that the conventional parametric Roemer method delivers higher estimates than forest, while tree estimates are lower than those based on forest.
Abbreviation: SRH=self-rated health.
FIGURE 4. Comparison of models’ test errors. (A) Parametric method vs. random forest; (B) Conditional inference trees vs. random forest.
Note: All models aim to minimize the MSE. MSE from Random Forest is used as the reference group. Ratios larger than 1 means the corresponding methods and outcome measures generate larger MSE than using Random Forest. The 95% confidence intervals are derived based on 200 bootstrapped re-samples of the test data.
Abbreviation: MSE=mean squared error.
Citation: |
Childhood circumstances impact senior health, prompting the introduction of machine learning methods to assess their individual and collective contributions to senior health.
Using health and retirement study (HRS) and China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we analyzed 2,434 American and 5,612 Chinese participants aged 60 and above. Conditional inference trees and forests were employed to estimate the influence of childhood circumstances on self-rated health (SRH).
The conventional method estimated higher inequality of opportunity (IOP) values in both China (0.039, accounting for 22.67% of the total Gini coefficient 0.172) and the US (0.067, accounting for 35.08% of the total Gini coefficient 0.191). In contrast, the conditional inference tree yielded lower estimates (China: 0.022, accounting for 12.79% of 0.172; US: 0.044, accounting for 23.04% of 0.191), as did the forest (China: 0.035, accounting for 20.35% of 0.172; US: 0.054, accounting for 28.27% of 0.191). Childhood health, financial status, and regional differences were key determinants of senior health. The conditional inference forest consistently outperformed others in predictive accuracy, as demonstrated by lower out-of-sample mean squared error (MSE).
The findings emphasize the need for early-life interventions to promote health equity in aging populations. Machine learning showcases the potential in identifying contributing factors.
① |
|
Citation: |