Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Mortality Prediction in a Prospective Cohort of Older Adults.
ageing
all-cause mortality
imbalanced data
machine learning
mortality prediction
older adults
prediction models
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Dec 2021
04 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
28
09
2021
revised:
01
12
2021
accepted:
02
12
2021
entrez:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
11
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As global demographics change, ageing is a global phenomenon which is increasingly of interest in our modern and rapidly changing society. Thus, the application of proper prognostic indices in clinical decisions regarding mortality prediction has assumed a significant importance for personalized risk management (i.e., identifying patients who are at high or low risk of death) and to help ensure effective healthcare services to patients. Consequently, prognostic modelling expressed as all-cause mortality prediction is an important step for effective patient management. Machine learning has the potential to transform prognostic modelling. In this paper, results on the development of machine learning models for all-cause mortality prediction in a cohort of healthy older adults are reported. The models are based on features covering anthropometric variables, physical and lab examinations, questionnaires, and lifestyles, as well as wearable data collected in free-living settings, obtained for the "Healthy Ageing Initiative" study conducted on 2291 recruited participants. Several machine learning techniques including feature engineering, feature selection, data augmentation and resampling were investigated for this purpose. A detailed empirical comparison of the impact of the different techniques is presented and discussed. The achieved performances were also compared with a standard epidemiological model. This investigation showed that, for the dataset under consideration, the best results were achieved with Random UnderSampling in conjunction with Random Forest (either with or without probability calibration). However, while including probability calibration slightly reduced the average performance, it increased the model robustness, as indicated by the lower 95% confidence intervals. The analysis showed that machine learning models could provide comparable results to standard epidemiological models while being completely data-driven and disease-agnostic, thus demonstrating the opportunity for building machine learning models on health records data for research and clinical practice. However, further testing is required to significantly improve the model performance and its robustness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34886532
pii: ijerph182312806
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182312806
pmc: PMC8657506
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
JAMA. 2016 Dec 13;316(22):2402-2410
pubmed: 27898976
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Feb 16;9(2):e25655
pubmed: 33591285
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31;13(8):e0202344
pubmed: 30169498
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):1221-1227
pubmed: 29982520
Crit Care Med. 1981 Aug;9(8):591-7
pubmed: 7261642
J Biomed Inform. 2020 May;105:103408
pubmed: 32173502
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 May 21;4(1):87
pubmed: 34021235
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Jul;45:392-397
pubmed: 33036848
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 27;14(3):e0214365
pubmed: 30917171
Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jun;31:3-10
pubmed: 27039014
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019 Mar 14;74(4):582-587
pubmed: 29924297
Crit Care Med. 1984 Nov;12(11):975-7
pubmed: 6499483
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Feb;95(5):e2696
pubmed: 26844511
Crit Care. 2020 Feb 6;24(1):42
pubmed: 32028984
J Aging Health. 1991 Nov;3(4):427-54
pubmed: 10115033
Sensors (Basel). 2020 May 27;20(11):
pubmed: 32471051
Chest. 2020 Sep;158(3):952-964
pubmed: 32353417
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Oct 1;25(10):1419-1428
pubmed: 29893864
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1381-95
pubmed: 12900694
J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018 Jun;48(2):103-107
pubmed: 29992197
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008 Oct;14(5):483-4
pubmed: 18787437
Am J Nurs. 2008 Apr;108(4):52-62; quiz 62-3
pubmed: 18367931
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2017 Dec;39(12):2395-2408
pubmed: 28103191
BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):1830
pubmed: 33256704
Clin Interv Aging. 2007;2(3):401-12
pubmed: 18044191
Crit Care Med. 1987 Aug;15(8):715-22
pubmed: 3111789
Injury. 2017 Feb;48(2):221-229
pubmed: 28011072
JAMA. 2012 Jan 11;307(2):182-92
pubmed: 22235089
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3144-51
pubmed: 26240227
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2019 May;28(5):584-592
pubmed: 30891850
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 4;12(4):e0174944
pubmed: 28376093
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Oct 20;20(1):262
pubmed: 33081694
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1991 Jul-Sep;4(3):173-8
pubmed: 1953971
Clin Cardiol. 2016 Feb;39(2):83-9
pubmed: 26720494
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 7;20(1):108
pubmed: 32381039
Int J Med Inform. 2020 Jul;139:104140
pubmed: 32325370
J Med Syst. 2015 Apr;39(4):210
pubmed: 25712814
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 31;8:621861
pubmed: 33869245
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 26;11(1):6968
pubmed: 33772109
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Dec;6(12):905-914
pubmed: 30274956
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1915997
pubmed: 31651973
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999 Jul;16(1):9-13
pubmed: 10456395
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Sep;112:103375
pubmed: 31382212
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Apr;64(4):424-442
pubmed: 31828760
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 27;8(1):6644
pubmed: 29703919