Confound-leakage: Confound Removal in Machine Learning Leads to Leakage
Open accessAbstract
Machine learning (ML) approaches to data analysis are now widely adopted in many fields including epidemiology and medicine. To apply these approaches, confounds must first be removed as is commonly done by featurewise removal of their variance by linear regression before applying ML. Here, we show this common approach to confound removal biases ML models, leading to misleading results. Specifically, this common deconfounding approach can leak information such that what are null or moderate effects become amplified to near-perfect prediction when nonlinear ML approaches are subsequently applied. We identify and evaluate possible mechanisms for such confound-leakage and provide practical guidance to mitigate its negative impact. We demonstrate the real-world importance of confound-leakage by analyzing a clinical dataset where accuracy is overestimated for predicting attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with depression as a confound. Our results have wide-reaching implications for implementation and deployment of ML workflows and beg caution against naïve use of standard confound removal approaches.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Performing covariate regression itself may lead to leakage.
“Interestingly, performing covariate regression itself may lead to leakage41 and is another consideration when deciding whether and how to implement covariate regression.”
From Data leakage inflates prediction performance in connectome-based machine learning models (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [1][1] Georg G von Polier, Eike Ahlers, Julia Amunts, Joerg Langner, Kaustubh R Patil, Simon B Eickhoff, Florian Helmhold, and Daina Langner. Predicting adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd) using vocal acoustic features. medRxiv , 3 2021. -
- [3][3] Eun Seo Jo and Timnit Gebru. Lessons from archives: Strategies for collecting sociocultural data in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 306-316. ACM, 1 2020. -
- [9][9] Lisa Wiersch, Sami Hamdan, Felix Hoffstaedter, Mikhail Votinov, Ute Habel, Benjamin Clemens, Birgit Derntl, Simon B Eickhoff, Kaustubh R Patil, and Susanne Weis. Accurate sex prediction of cisgender and transgender individuals without brain size bias. bioRxiv , page 2022.07.26.499576, 1 2022. -
- [10][10] Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys , 54, 2021. -
- [13][13] Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2010. -
- [19][19] Richard Dinga, Lianne Schmaal, Brenda W.J.H. Penninx, Dick J. Veltman, and Andre F. Marquand. Controlling for effects of confounding variables on machine learning predictions. bioRxiv , 2020. -
- [21][21] Tyler J. Vander Weele and Ilya Shpitser. On the definition of a confounder. Annals of Statistics , 41, 2013. -
- [25][25] Léo Grinsztajn, Edouard Oyallon, and Gaël Varoquaux. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data? arXiv , 7 2022. -
- [29][29] Gagan Joshi, Janet Wozniak, Carter Petty, Mary Kate Martelon, Ronna Fried, Anela Bolfek, Amelia Kotte, Jonathan Stevens, Stephannie L Furtak, Michelle Bourgeois, Janet Caruso, Ashley Caron, and Joseph Biederman. Psychiatric comorbidity and functioning in a clinically referred population of adults with autism spectrum disorders: a comparative study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 43:1314-1325, 6 2013. -
- [32][32] Michael P Epstein, Richard Duncan, Yunxuan Jiang, Karen N Conneely, Andrew S Allen, and Glen A Satten. A permutation procedure to correct for confounders in case-control studies, including tests of rare variation. American Journal of Human Genetics , 91:215-223, 8 2012. -
- [33][33] Elias Chaibub Neto, Abhishek Pratap, Thanneer M Perumal, Meghasyam Tummalacherla, Brian M Bot, Lara Mangravite, and Larsson Omberg. Using permutations to assess confounding in machine learning applications for digital health. arXiv , 2018. -
- [39][39] Lars Buitinck, Gilles Louppe, Mathieu Blondel, Fabian Pedregosa, Andreas Mueller, Olivier Grisel, Vlad Niculae, Peter Prettenhofer, Alexandre Gramfort, Jaques Grobler, Robert Layton, Jake Vanderplas, Arnaud Joly, Brian Holt, and Gaël Varoquaux. Api design for machine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project. In European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practices of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (2013) , 9 2013. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data leakage inflates prediction performance in connectome-based machine learning models
Rosenblatt, M., Tejavibulya, L., Jiang, R., Noble, S., & Scheinost, D. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46150-w · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Confound-leakage: confound removal in machine learning leads to leakage
Hamdan, S., Love, B. C., von Polier, G. G., Weis, S., Schwender, H. R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Patil, K. R. (2022) · GigaScience · doi:10.1093/gigascience/giad071 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationJahanshad, N., Lenzini, P., & Bijsterbosch, J. (2025) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-024-01938-8 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Identifiability in Functional Connectivity May Unintentionally Inflate Prediction ResultsPreprint
Orlichenko, A., Qu, G., Su, K., Liu, A., Shen, H., Deng, H., & Wang, Y. (2023) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.23826441
- Authors
- Hamdan, S., Love, B. C., von Polier, G. G., Weis, S., Schwender, H., Eickhoff, S. B., & Patil, K. R.
- Affiliations
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2210.09232
- OpenAlex
- W4320858546
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- linear regression, nonlinear machine learning, model bias, overfitting, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, clinical prediction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
