Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Comparison of methods for early-readmission prediction in a high-dimensional heterogeneous covariates and time-to-event outcome framework
12
Zitationen
8
Autoren
2019
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Choosing the most performing method in terms of outcome prediction or variables selection is a recurring problem in prognosis studies, leading to many publications on methods comparison. But some aspects have received little attention. First, most comparison studies treat prediction performance and variable selection aspects separately. Second, methods are either compared within a binary outcome setting (where we want to predict whether the readmission will occur within an arbitrarily chosen delay or not) or within a survival analysis setting (where the outcomes are directly the censored times), but not both. In this paper, we propose a comparison methodology to weight up those different settings both in terms of prediction and variables selection, while incorporating advanced machine learning strategies. METHODS: Using a high-dimensional case study on a sickle-cell disease (SCD) cohort, we compare 8 statistical methods. In the binary outcome setting, we consider logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), gradient boosting (GB) and neural network (NN); while on the survival analysis setting, we consider the Cox Proportional Hazards (PH), the CURE and the C-mix models. We also propose a method using Gaussian Processes to extract meaningfull structured covariates from longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among all assessed statistical methods, the survival analysis ones obtain the best results. In particular the C-mix model yields the better performances in both the two considered settings (AUC =0.94 in the binary outcome setting), as well as interesting interpretation aspects. There is some consistency in selected covariates across methods within a setting, but not much across the two settings. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that learning withing the survival analysis setting first (so using all the temporal information), and then going back to a binary prediction using the survival estimates gives significantly better prediction performances than the ones obtained by models trained "directly" within the binary outcome setting.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
"Why Should I Trust You?"
2016 · 14.661 Zit.
Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data
2005 · 10.538 Zit.
A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks
2020 · 8.915 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.483 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 8.003 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- Sorbonne Université(FR)
- Laboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles Aléatoires(FR)
- Laboratoire de Probabilités, Statistique et Modélisation(FR)
- Inserm(FR)
- Université Paris Cité(FR)
- Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers(FR)
- Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou(FR)
- Département d'Informatique(FR)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique(FR)
- École Polytechnique(FR)
- Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées de l'École polytechnique(FR)
- Université Paris-Saclay(FR)
- Laboratoire Analyse et Modélisation pour la Biologie et l'Environnement(FR)
- Laboratoire de Mathématiques Blaise Pascal(FR)
- Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Modélisation d'Évry(FR)
- Université d'Évry Val-d'Essonne(FR)
- Délégation Paris 5(FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris(FR)