Machine Learning Is Not Just for Prediction: Its Role as an Exploratory Analytical Tool in Medicine.

IF 0.5 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Annals of vascular diseases Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-17 DOI:10.3400/avd.ra.26-00055
Sei Komatsu
{"title":"Machine Learning Is Not Just for Prediction: Its Role as an Exploratory Analytical Tool in Medicine.","authors":"Sei Komatsu","doi":"10.3400/avd.ra.26-00055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Machine learning (ML) has been primarily used for predictive modeling in medical research, but this reflects only part of its potential. This review proposes a conceptual distinction between predictive ML and exploratory ML. Predictive ML aims to maximize accuracy on unseen data. Exploratory ML focuses on identifying underlying structures in data to generate hypotheses. Exploratory ML plays an important role under conditions where conventional hypothesis-driven statistics have limitations, including high-dimensional data, small sample sizes, and biopsy-inaccessible organs such as the vascular system. Because ML-derived results are based on associations rather than causality, they should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Methods including unsupervised learning, interpretable supervised learning, and network analysis are discussed as exploratory ML approaches. The differences in objectives and evaluation criteria between exploratory ML and conventional hypothesis-driven statistics are also discussed, together with the structural gap in peer review. The key argument is that studies using exploratory ML should be evaluated not by predictive performance but by the stability, reproducibility, and interpretability of the identified structures. Without this shift, exploratory analyses may be systematically misjudged within current evaluation standards. This perspective may bridge exploratory analysis and confirmatory research and support new study designs in medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":7995,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular diseases","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13279870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3400/avd.ra.26-00055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has been primarily used for predictive modeling in medical research, but this reflects only part of its potential. This review proposes a conceptual distinction between predictive ML and exploratory ML. Predictive ML aims to maximize accuracy on unseen data. Exploratory ML focuses on identifying underlying structures in data to generate hypotheses. Exploratory ML plays an important role under conditions where conventional hypothesis-driven statistics have limitations, including high-dimensional data, small sample sizes, and biopsy-inaccessible organs such as the vascular system. Because ML-derived results are based on associations rather than causality, they should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Methods including unsupervised learning, interpretable supervised learning, and network analysis are discussed as exploratory ML approaches. The differences in objectives and evaluation criteria between exploratory ML and conventional hypothesis-driven statistics are also discussed, together with the structural gap in peer review. The key argument is that studies using exploratory ML should be evaluated not by predictive performance but by the stability, reproducibility, and interpretability of the identified structures. Without this shift, exploratory analyses may be systematically misjudged within current evaluation standards. This perspective may bridge exploratory analysis and confirmatory research and support new study designs in medicine.

机器学习不仅仅是为了预测:它在医学中作为一种探索性分析工具的作用。
机器学习(ML)主要用于医学研究中的预测建模,但这仅反映了其潜力的一部分。本文提出了预测性机器学习和探索性机器学习之间的概念区别。预测性机器学习旨在最大限度地提高未见数据的准确性。探索性ML专注于识别数据中的潜在结构以生成假设。探索性机器学习在传统假设驱动统计有局限性的情况下发挥着重要作用,包括高维数据、小样本量和活检无法进入的器官,如血管系统。因为ml衍生的结果是基于关联而不是因果关系,它们应该被解释为假设生成而不是验证。包括无监督学习、可解释监督学习和网络分析在内的方法作为探索性的机器学习方法进行了讨论。本文还讨论了探索性机器学习与传统假设驱动统计在目标和评估标准上的差异,以及同行评审中的结构性差距。关键的论点是,使用探索性机器学习的研究不应该通过预测性能来评估,而应该通过确定结构的稳定性、可重复性和可解释性来评估。如果没有这种转变,探索性分析可能会在当前的评估标准中被系统性地误判。这一观点可以连接探索性分析和验证性研究,并支持新的医学研究设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of vascular diseases
Annals of vascular diseases PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书