The Effectiveness of Advanced Machine Learning Models in IQ Prediction in the Context of Education, Health, and Socioeconomic Indicators

Year 2025, Volume: 14 Issue: 3, 1403 - 1419, 30.09.2025

Doruk Ayberkin , Özel Sebetci

https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.1646155

Abstract

This study investigates the effectiveness of advanced machine learning models in predicting IQ levels using a diverse set of socioeconomic and health indicators from global databases such as WHO, the World Bank, and United Nations organizations. The research employs various algorithms, including Linear Regression, Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machines, Ridge and Lasso Regressions, XGBoost, LightGBM, and a Stacking Regressor to capture both linear and non-linear relationships. Evaluation metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and R-squared (R²) reveal that LightGBM and Stacking Regressor models excel in accuracy and generalization. The study highlights the trade-off between model interpretability and predictive power, emphasizing that simpler models offer greater transparency. In contrast, more complex models successfully capture intricate interactions among education, health, and economic factors. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and researchers, suggesting that machine learning approaches can significantly enhance understanding of the determinants of IQ and aid in developing targeted strategies in education and social policy.

Keywords

Machine Learning and Socioeconomic Indicators , Data Analysis , Public Policies , Cognitive Outcomes of Education Policies , Planning with IQ Estimation

Ethical Statement

The study is complied with research and publication ethics.

References

• K. Kovacs and A. R. A. Conway, “What is IQ? Life beyond ‘general intelligence’,” Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 189–194, 2019.
• H. Basagaoglu, G. Tuncel, and M. A. Yurdusev, “A review on interpretable and explainable artificial intelligence in hydroclimatic applications,” Water, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1042, 2022.
• H. Kaur, H. Nori, S. Jenkins, R. Caruana, H. Wallach, and J. W. Vaughan, “Interpreting interpretability: Understanding data scientists’ use of interpretability tools for machine learning,” in Proc. 2020 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst., 2020.
• N. Nordin, W. M. F. W. Ismail, and S. A. M. Shah, “An explainable predictive model for suicide attempt risk using an ensemble learning and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) approach,” Asian J. Psychiatry, vol. 70, p. 102998, 2022.
• L. C. Nnadi, A. Adebayo, and R. Njoku, “Prediction of students’ adaptability using explainable AI in educational machine learning models,” Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, p. 2141, 2024.
• V. Ponce-Bobadilla, M. Trujillo, and V. Leiva, “Practical guide to SHAP analysis: Explaining supervised machine learning model predictions in drug development,” Clin. Transl. Sci., vol. 17, no. 2, p. e12389, 2024.
• J. Zhao, T. Wang, Z. Li, and M. He, “Multi-source driven estimation of earthquake economic losses: A comprehensive and interpretable ensemble machine learning model,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 96, p. 104236, 2024.
• Z. Song, X. Wei, Y. Chen, and J. Li, “An interpretable framework for modeling global solar radiation using tree-based ensemble machine learning and Shapley additive explanations methods,” Appl. Energy, vol. 355, p. 122268, 2024.
• C. F. Dormann, J. Elith, S. Bacher, et al., “Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance,” Ecography, vol. 36, pp. 27–46, 2013.
• D. C. Rowe, W. J. Vesterdal, and J. L. Rodgers, “Herrnstein’s syllogism: Genetic and shared environmental influences on IQ, education, and income,” Intelligence, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 405–423, 1998.
• E. Zigler and P. K. Trickett, “IQ, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs,” Am. Psychol., vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 789–798, 1978.
• K. Kovacs and A. R. A. Conway, “What is IQ? Life beyond ‘general intelligence’,” Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 189–194, 2019.
• M. W. King and P. A. Resick, “Data mining in psychological treatment research: A primer on classification and regression trees,” J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 895–905, 2014.
• Eloyan, et al., “Automated diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactive disorder using magnetic resonance imaging,” Front. Syst. Neurosci., vol. 6, p. 61, 2012.
• E. Feczko, et al., “Subtyping cognitive profiles in autism spectrum disorder using a functional random forest algorithm,” NeuroImage, vol. 172, pp. 674–688, 2018.
• Y. Zhou, F. Yu, and T. Duong, “Multiparametric MRI characterization and prediction in autism spectrum disorder using graph theory and machine learning,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 6, p. e90405, 2014.
• S. González, S. García, J. Del Ser, L. Rokach, and F. Herrera, “A practical tutorial on bagging and boosting based ensembles for machine learning: Algorithms, software tools, performance study, practical perspectives and opportunities,” Inf. Fusion, vol. 64, pp. 205–237, 2020.
• N. Aziz, E. A. P. Akhir, I. A. Aziz, J. Jaafar, M. H. Hasan, and A. N. C. Abas, “A study on gradient boosting algorithms for development of AI monitoring and prediction systems,” in Proc. 2020 Int. Conf. Comput. Intell. (ICCI), 2020.
• O. Ayoub, S. Alshammari, and F. Sallabi, “Towards explainable artificial intelligence in optical networks: The use case of lightpath QoT estimation,” J. Opt. Commun. Netw., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 305–314, 2022.
• R. Alam, M. H. ur Rehman, and M. N. Khan, “Unveiling diabetes predictions: Bridging complexity and clarity through interpretable AI and SHAP insights,” in Proc. 2023 4th Int. Conf. Data Analytics Bus. Ind. (ICDABI), pp. 1–6, 2023.
• T. R. Noviandy, F. M. Halim, and N. A. Rahim, “Enhancing loan approval decision-making: An interpretable machine learning approach using LightGBM for digital economy development,” Malaysian J. Comput., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 88–101, 2024.
• R. Lynn and T. Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Praeger Publishers, 2012.
• H. Rindermann, Cognitive Capitalism: Human Capital and the Wellbeing of Nations. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018.
• C. Molnar, Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable, 2nd ed., 2022.
• E. A. Hanushek and L. Woessmann, The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth. MIT Press, 2015.
• Sen, Development as Freedom. Oxford Univ. Press, 1999.
• UNESCO, Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021.
• World Bank, World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. World Bank Group, 2020.
• UNDP, Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier – Human Development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme, 2020.
• J. D. Angrist and J. S. Pischke, Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton Univ. Press, 2009.
• S. Athey, “Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems,” Science, vol. 355, no. 6324, pp. 483–485, 2017.