Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30189255›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2019

Mixed effect machine learning: A framework for predicting longitudinal change in hemoglobin A1c.

Che Ngufor, Holly Van Houten, Brian S Caffo, Nilay D Shah, Rozalina G McCoy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. An overview of propensity score matching methods for clustered data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Che NguforDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States. Electronic address: Ngufor.Che@mayo.edu.
Holly Van HoutenDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Brian S CaffoDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Nilay D ShahDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Rozalina G McCoyDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

TR&D 4: Algorithms for functional and anatomical brain analysisP41EB015909 · NIBIB · HUGO W. MOSER RES INST KENNEDY KRIEGER · PI VAN ZIJL, PETER CM · 2012 to 2020
$13.1M
Statistical Methods for Multilevel Multivariate Functional StudiesR01NS060910 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Ciprian M Crainiceanu · 2009 to 2026
$8.3M
Predicting the Risk of Severe Hypoglycemic and Hyperglycemic Events in Adults with DiabetesK23DK114497 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI MCCOY, ROZALINA GRUBINA · 2017 to 2021
$846k
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015909NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK114497NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS060910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate and reliable prediction of clinical progression over time has the potential to improve the outcomes of chronic disease. The classical approach to analyzing longitudinal data is to use (generalized) linear mixed-effect models (GLMM). However, linear parametric models are predicated on assumptions, which are often difficult to verify. In contrast, data-driven machine learning methods can be applied to derive insight from the raw data without a priori assumptions. However, the underlying theory of most machine learning algorithms assume that the data is independent and identically distributed, making them inefficient for longitudinal supervised learning. In this study, we formulate an analytic framework, which integrates the random-effects structure of GLMM into non-linear machine learning models capable of exploiting temporal heterogeneous effects, sparse and varying-length patient characteristics inherent in longitudinal data. We applied the derived mixed-effect machine learning (MEml) framework to predict longitudinal change in glycemic control measured by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among well controlled adults with type 2 diabetes. Results show that MEml is competitive with traditional GLMM, but substantially outperformed standard machine learning models that do not account for random-effects. Specifically, the accuracy of MEml in predicting glycemic change at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clinical visits in advanced was 1.04, 1.08, 1.11, and 1.14 times that of the gradient boosted model respectively, with similar results for the other methods. To further demonstrate the general applicability of MEml, a series of experiments were performed using real publicly available and synthetic data sets for accuracy and robustness. These experiments reinforced the superiority of MEml over the other methods. Overall, results from this study highlight the importance of modeling random-effects in machine learning approaches based on longitudinal data. Our MEml method is highly resistant to correlated data, readily accounts for random-effects, and predicts change of a longitudinal clinical outcome in real-world clinical settings with high accuracy.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultAlgorithmsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease ProgressionGlycated HemoglobinHumansLongitudinal StudiesGlycated HemoglobinGlycemic controlGlycosylated hemoglobinLongitudinal supervised learningMachine learningRandom-effectsType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30189255
PMCPMC6495570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.