Empirical analyses and simulations showed that different machine and statistical learning methods had differing performance for predicting blood pressure

Machine learning is increasingly being used to predict clinical outcomes. Most comparisons of different methods have been based on empirical analyses in specific datasets. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine when machine learning methods perform better than statistical learning methods in a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Scientific reports 2022-06, Vol.12 (1), p.9312-9312, Article 9312
Main Authors: Austin, Peter C., Harrell, Frank E., Lee, Douglas S., Steyerberg, Ewout W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
692/308/174
692/308/409
692/308/575
Blood pressure
Congestive heart failure
Humanities and Social Sciences
Learning algorithms
Machine learning
Monte Carlo simulation
multidisciplinary
Myocardial infarction
Neural networks
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Simulation
Statistical methods
Statistics
Stochasticity
Trees
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Machine learning is increasingly being used to predict clinical outcomes. Most comparisons of different methods have been based on empirical analyses in specific datasets. We used Monte Carlo simulations to determine when machine learning methods perform better than statistical learning methods in a specific setting. We evaluated six learning methods: stochastic gradient boosting machines using trees as the base learners, random forests, artificial neural networks, the lasso, ridge regression, and linear regression estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS). Our simulations were informed by empirical analyses in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) and used six data-generating processes, each based on one of the six learning methods, to simulate continuous outcomes in the derivation and validation samples. The outcome was systolic blood pressure at hospital discharge, a continuous outcome. We applied the six learning methods in each of the simulated derivation samples and evaluated performance in the simulated validation samples. The primary observation was that neural networks tended to result in estimates with worse predictive accuracy than the other five methods in both disease samples and across all six data-generating processes. Boosted trees and OLS regression tended to perform well across a range of scenarios.
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-13015-5