Reproducibility and Robustness of Localized Mortality Prediction

Author:

Nitch-Griffin Evelyn,Peterson Amy,Skaf Yara,Brunson Jason Cory

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundWhile localized modeling—the use of predictive models to perform the adaptation step in case-based reasoning—has been evaluated in several experimental settings, its reported successes have infrequently been independently and externally validated.ObjectiveWe aimed to extend and validate an experimental study of mortality prediction in a critical care population and to assess the importance of several methodological factors to predictive performance.MethodsWe reproduced the workflow of Lee, Maslove, and Dubin (2015) using an updated database. We evaluated performance as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and under the precision–recall curve and calibration as weakness of evidence in Hosmer– Lemeshow tests. We compared the effects of several modeling choices, including how relevance is quantified, and how relevance cohorts are retrieved, and the choice of model. We compared ours to previous results and used linear regression to quantify the role of each modeling choice on performance.ResultsOverall performance and its relationship to cohort size validated previous results. These relationships varied by model family as expected, though we observed no advantage of decision trees over a model-free approach and poor performance by random forests. An alternate choice of unlearned similarity measure yielded marginal and inconsistent performance differences. Denominating cohorts by similarity threshold rather than by cardinality yielded marginal but consistent performance losses. A temporal validation exercise enabled by a change of information system before the recent upgrade corroborated performance estimates from cross-validation. In all, cohort denomination mattered more to performance than any other methodological choice.DiscussionThe greater impact of retrieval than of adaptation suggests a weakness with the strategy of localized modeling. Additional research to deconstruct the varieties of this approach and quantify the relative benefits of its components is needed to resolve this question.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3