Papers › Statistical quantification of confounding bias in predictive modelling

Statistical quantification of confounding bias in predictive modelling

1 Nov 2021arXiv:2111.00814archive 2025-07-28

Tamas Spisak

The lack of non-parametric statistical tests for confounding bias significantly hampers the development of robust, valid and generalizable predictive models in many fields of research. Here I propose the partial and full confounder tests, which, for a given confounder variable, probe the null hypotheses of unconfounded and fully confounded models, respectively. The tests provide a strict control for Type I errors and high statistical power, even for non-normally and non-linearly dependent predictions, often seen in machine learning. Applying the proposed tests on models trained on functional brain connectivity data from the Human Connectome Project and the Autism Brain Imaging Data Exchange dataset reveals confounders that were previously unreported or found to be hard to correct for with state-of-the-art confound mitigation approaches. The tests, implemented in the package mlconfound (https://mlconfound.readthedocs.io), can aid the assessment and improvement of the generalizability and neurobiological validity of predictive models and, thereby, foster the development of clinically useful machine learning biomarkers.

PaperPDFCode

Code

spisakt/mlconfound_manuscript officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report
pni-lab/mlconfound officialmentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

BIG-bench Machine Learning

1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections