Predicting dental anxiety in young adults: classical statistical modelling approach versus machine learning approach

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To predict and identify the key demographic and clinical exposure factors associated with dental anxiety among young adults, and to compare if the traditional statistical modelling approach provides similar results to the machine learning (ML) approach in predicting factors for dental anxiety. Methods A cross-sectional study of Western Illinois University students. Three survey instruments (sociodemographic questionnaire, modified dental anxiety scale (MDAS), and dental concerns assessment tool (DCA)) were distributed via email to the students using survey monkey. The dependent variable was the mean MDAS scores, while the independent variables were the sociodemographic and dental concern assessment variables. Multivariable analysis was done by comparing the classical statistical model and the machine learning model. The classical statistical modelling technique was conducted using the multiple linear regression analysis and the final model was selected based on Akaike information Criteria (AIC) using the backward stepwise technique while the machine learining modelling was performed by comparing two ML models: LASSO regression and extreme gradient boosting machine (XGBOOST) under 5-fold cross-validation using the resampling technique. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.1.3. Results The mean MDAS was 13.73 ± 5.51. After careful consideration of all possible fitted models and their interaction terms the classical statistical approach yielded a parsimonious model with 13 predictor variables with Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) of 2376.4. For the ML approach, the Lasso regression model was the best-performing model with a mean RMSE of 0.617, R2 of 0.615, and MAE of 0.483. Comparing the variable selection of ML versus the classical statistical model, both model types identified 12 similar variables (out of 13) as the most important predictors of dental anxiety in this study population. Conclusion There is a high burden of dental anxiety within this study population. This study contributes to reducing the knowledge gap about the impact of clinical exposure variables on dental anxiety and the role of machine learningin the prediction of dental anxiety. The predictor variables identified can be used to inform public health interventions that are geared towards eliminating the individual clinical exposure triggers of dental anxiety are recommended.