Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26606986›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Rough set theory based prognostic classification models for hospice referral.

Eleazar Gil-Herrera, Garrick Aden-Buie, Ali Yalcin, Athanasios Tsalatsanis, Laura E Barnes, Benjamin Djulbegovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eleazar Gil-HerreraThreshold Tuning Optimization Team Citigroup, 3800 Citibank Center, Tampa, 33610, FL, USA.
Garrick Aden-BuieDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118, Tampa, 33620, FL, USA.
Ali YalcinDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118, Tampa, 33620, FL, USA. ayalcin@usf.edu.
Athanasios TsalatsanisThreshold Tuning Optimization Team Citigroup, 3800 Citibank Center, Tampa, 33610, FL, USA.
Laura E BarnesDepartment of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, 151 Engineer's Way, Charlottesville, 22904, VA, USA.
Benjamin DjulbegovicThreshold Tuning Optimization Team Citigroup, 3800 Citibank Center, Tampa, 33610, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper explores and evaluates the application of classical and dominance-based rough set theory (RST) for the development of data-driven prognostic classification models for hospice referral. In this work, rough set based models are compared with other data-driven methods with respect to two factors related to clinical credibility: accuracy and accessibility. Accessibility refers to the ability of the model to provide traceable, interpretable results and use data that is relevant and simple to collect.

methodsWe utilize retrospective data from 9,103 terminally ill patients to demonstrate the design and implementation RST- based models to identify potential hospice candidates. The classical rough set approach (CRSA) provides methods for knowledge acquisition, founded on the relational indiscernibility of objects in a decision table, to describe required conditions for membership in a concept class. On the other hand, the dominance-based rough set approach (DRSA) analyzes information based on the monotonic relationships between condition attributes values and their assignment to the decision class. CRSA decision rules for six-month patient survival classification were induced using the MODLEM algorithm. Dominance-based decision rules were extracted using the VC-DomLEM rule induction algorithm.

resultsThe RST-based classifiers are compared with other predictive and rule based decision modeling techniques, namely logistic regression, support vector machines, random forests and C4.5. The RST-based classifiers demonstrate average AUC of 69.74 % with MODLEM and 71.73 % with VC-DomLEM, while the compared methods achieve average AUC of 74.21 % for logistic regression, 73.52 % for support vector machines, 74.59 % for random forests, and 70.88 % for C4.5.

conclusionsThis paper contributes to the growing body of research in RST-based prognostic models. RST and its extensions posses features that enhance the accessibility of clinical decision support models. While the non-rule-based methods-logistic regression, support vector machines and random forests-were found to achieve higher AUC, the performance differential may be outweighed by the benefits of the rule-based methods, particularly in the case of VC-DomLEM. Developing prognostic models for hospice referrals is a challenging problem resulting in substandard performance for all of the evaluated classification methods.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPrognosisAgedClassificationFemaleHospicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationTerminally Ill

Identifiers

PMID26606986
PMCPMC4659220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.