Cohort study demonstrates machine learning models predict disease categories using parental radiation dose and birth year in nuclear test descendants, indicating strong exposure-era confounding.
Descendants of Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site-exposed individuals have a documented multigenerational health burden, yet parental dose-integrated predictive modelling of descendant outcomes remains absent. This study evaluates the feasibility of ICD chapter-level outcome group classification in registry-derived descendant cohorts using machine learning, with both cohorts restricted to outcome-positive individuals. Two cohorts were derived from the State Scientific Automated Medical Registry: a second-generation cohort (n = 7898) and a three-generation pilot cohort (n = 2841). Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM were evaluated via stratified five-fold cross-validation using eight parental dose and demographic predictors; no descendant-level clinical measurements were included. In the second-generation cohort, AUC-ROC reached 0.819 for cardiovascular outcomes, 0.776 for neoplasms, and 0.835 for the composite endpoint. A unified-outcome sensitivity analysis incorporating death-certificate and protocol records increased second-generation positive counts by 22.3–24.7%, while discrimination remained broadly stable. Birth year was the dominant predictor, reflecting biological ageing, ascertainment differences, and exposure-era confounding; dose-only models retained AUC values of 0.619–0.761, indicating that the recorded parental dose variables contained above-chance predictive information within this registry cohort, without establishing a biological, causal, or heritable intergenerational effect. Third-generation AUC values of 0.901–0.918 were stable across the conducted resampling checks but were most plausibly driven by structural birth-year confounding. These results establish a reproducible performance baseline for this nuclear legacy registry setting and identify healthy cohort inclusion, age-standardised ascertainment, and individual biological markers as key prerequisites for advancing this research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daribayev et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: