Random survival forests for dynamic predictions of a time-to-event outcome using a longitudinal biomarker.
Area under the curve
Joint modeling
Landmarking
Prediction accuracy
Variable importance
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 10 2021
17 10 2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2021
accepted:
21
08
2021
entrez:
18
10
2021
pubmed:
19
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Risk prediction models for time-to-event outcomes play a vital role in personalized decision-making. A patient's biomarker values, such as medical lab results, are often measured over time but traditional prediction models ignore their longitudinal nature, using only baseline information. Dynamic prediction incorporates longitudinal information to produce updated survival predictions during follow-up. Existing methods for dynamic prediction include joint modeling, which often suffers from computational complexity and poor performance under misspecification, and landmarking, which has a straightforward implementation but typically relies on a proportional hazards model. Random survival forests (RSF), a machine learning algorithm for time-to-event outcomes, can capture complex relationships between the predictors and survival without requiring prior specification and has been shown to have superior predictive performance. We propose an alternative approach for dynamic prediction using random survival forests in a landmarking framework. With a simulation study, we compared the predictive performance of our proposed method with Cox landmarking and joint modeling in situations where the proportional hazards assumption does not hold and the longitudinal marker(s) have a complex relationship with the survival outcome. We illustrated the use of the RSF landmark approach in two clinical applications to assess the performance of various RSF model building decisions and to demonstrate its use in obtaining dynamic predictions. In simulation studies, RSF landmarking outperformed joint modeling and Cox landmarking when a complex relationship between the survival and longitudinal marker processes was present. It was also useful in application when there were several predictors for which the clinical relevance was unknown and multiple longitudinal biomarkers were present. Individualized dynamic predictions can be obtained from this method and the variable importance metric is useful for examining the changing predictive power of variables over time. In addition, RSF landmarking is easily implementable in standard software and using suggested specifications requires less computation time than joint modeling. RSF landmarking is a nonparametric, machine learning alternative to current methods for obtaining dynamic predictions when there are complex or unknown relationships present. It requires little upfront decision-making and has comparable predictive performance and has preferable computational speed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Risk prediction models for time-to-event outcomes play a vital role in personalized decision-making. A patient's biomarker values, such as medical lab results, are often measured over time but traditional prediction models ignore their longitudinal nature, using only baseline information. Dynamic prediction incorporates longitudinal information to produce updated survival predictions during follow-up. Existing methods for dynamic prediction include joint modeling, which often suffers from computational complexity and poor performance under misspecification, and landmarking, which has a straightforward implementation but typically relies on a proportional hazards model. Random survival forests (RSF), a machine learning algorithm for time-to-event outcomes, can capture complex relationships between the predictors and survival without requiring prior specification and has been shown to have superior predictive performance.
METHODS
We propose an alternative approach for dynamic prediction using random survival forests in a landmarking framework. With a simulation study, we compared the predictive performance of our proposed method with Cox landmarking and joint modeling in situations where the proportional hazards assumption does not hold and the longitudinal marker(s) have a complex relationship with the survival outcome. We illustrated the use of the RSF landmark approach in two clinical applications to assess the performance of various RSF model building decisions and to demonstrate its use in obtaining dynamic predictions.
RESULTS
In simulation studies, RSF landmarking outperformed joint modeling and Cox landmarking when a complex relationship between the survival and longitudinal marker processes was present. It was also useful in application when there were several predictors for which the clinical relevance was unknown and multiple longitudinal biomarkers were present. Individualized dynamic predictions can be obtained from this method and the variable importance metric is useful for examining the changing predictive power of variables over time. In addition, RSF landmarking is easily implementable in standard software and using suggested specifications requires less computation time than joint modeling.
CONCLUSIONS
RSF landmarking is a nonparametric, machine learning alternative to current methods for obtaining dynamic predictions when there are complex or unknown relationships present. It requires little upfront decision-making and has comparable predictive performance and has preferable computational speed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34657597
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01375-x
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01375-x
pmc: PMC8520610
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
216Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002535
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Dec 31;20(1):1
pubmed: 31888507
Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3649-3666
pubmed: 30463497
Biometrics. 2005 Mar;61(1):92-105
pubmed: 15737082
Stat Med. 2013 Dec 30;32(30):5381-97
pubmed: 24027076
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Jul 28;17(1):115
pubmed: 28754093
Stat Med. 2019 Feb 20;38(4):558-582
pubmed: 29869423
Biom J. 2017 Nov;59(6):1277-1300
pubmed: 28508545
J Stat Softw. 2012 Sep;50(11):1-23
pubmed: 25317082
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Jun;85(6):2026-9
pubmed: 18498814
Biometrics. 2017 Mar;73(1):83-93
pubmed: 27438160
Biometrics. 2008 Jun;64(2):603-10
pubmed: 17764480
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 7;18(1):50
pubmed: 29879902
Biometrics. 2020 Dec;76(4):1177-1189
pubmed: 31880315
Am J Transplant. 2018 Apr;18(4):907-915
pubmed: 28925597
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jun 26;19(1):130
pubmed: 31242848
Biostatistics. 2014 Oct;15(4):757-73
pubmed: 24728979
Clin Transl Sci. 2018 May;11(3):305-311
pubmed: 29536640
Stat Methods Med Res. 2021 Jan;30(1):99-111
pubmed: 32726189
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Sep 07;16(1):117
pubmed: 27604810
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 31;19(Suppl 1):18
pubmed: 30700290
Biostatistics. 2019 Jul 13;:
pubmed: 31301171
Biostatistics. 2019 Apr 1;20(2):347-357
pubmed: 29462286
Stat Med. 2004 Jan 15;23(1):77-91
pubmed: 14695641
Biom J. 2017 Nov;59(6):1261-1276
pubmed: 28792080
Biometrics. 2011 Sep;67(3):819-29
pubmed: 21306352
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Feb 26;18(1):24
pubmed: 29482517
Artif Intell Med. 2011 Oct;53(2):107-18
pubmed: 21821401