Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30841867›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Comparison of methods for early-readmission prediction in a high-dimensional heterogeneous covariates and time-to-event outcome framework.

Simon Bussy, Raphaël Veil, Vincent Looten, Anita Burgun, Stéphane Gaïffas, Agathe Guilloux, Brigitte Ranque, Anne-Sophie Jannot

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Simon BussyLaboratoire de Probabilités Statistique et Modélisation (LPSM), UMR 8001, Sorbonne University, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France. simon.bussy@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6059-0685
Raphaël VeilAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Biomedical Informatics and Public Health Department, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, 20 Rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France.
Vincent LootenAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Biomedical Informatics and Public Health Department, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, 20 Rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France.
Anita BurgunAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Biomedical Informatics and Public Health Department, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, 20 Rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France.
Stéphane GaïffasLaboratoire de Probabilités Statistique et Modélisation (LPSM), UMR 8001, Sorbonne University, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005, France.
Agathe GuillouxLAMME, Univ Evry, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, 23 boulevard de France, Evry, 91025, France.
Brigitte RanqueINSERM UMRS 970, Université Paris Descartes, 56 rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France.
Anne-Sophie JannotAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Biomedical Informatics and Public Health Department, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, 20 Rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChoosing the most performing method in terms of outcome prediction or variables selection is a recurring problem in prognosis studies, leading to many publications on methods comparison. But some aspects have received little attention. First, most comparison studies treat prediction performance and variable selection aspects separately. Second, methods are either compared within a binary outcome setting (where we want to predict whether the readmission will occur within an arbitrarily chosen delay or not) or within a survival analysis setting (where the outcomes are directly the censored times), but not both. In this paper, we propose a comparison methodology to weight up those different settings both in terms of prediction and variables selection, while incorporating advanced machine learning strategies.

methodsUsing a high-dimensional case study on a sickle-cell disease (SCD) cohort, we compare 8 statistical methods. In the binary outcome setting, we consider logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), gradient boosting (GB) and neural network (NN); while on the survival analysis setting, we consider the Cox Proportional Hazards (PH), the CURE and the C-mix models. We also propose a method using Gaussian Processes to extract meaningfull structured covariates from longitudinal data.

resultsAmong all assessed statistical methods, the survival analysis ones obtain the best results. In particular the C-mix model yields the better performances in both the two considered settings (AUC =0.94 in the binary outcome setting), as well as interesting interpretation aspects. There is some consistency in selected covariates across methods within a setting, but not much across the two settings.

conclusionsIt appears that learning withing the survival analysis setting first (so using all the temporal information), and then going back to a binary prediction using the survival estimates gives significantly better prediction performances than the ones obtained by models trained "directly" within the binary outcome setting.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellCohort StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMultivariate AnalysisNeural Networks, ComputerOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ReadmissionPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsSupport Vector MachineSurvival AnalysisHigh-dimensional predictionHospital readmission riskMachine learning methodsSickle-cell diseaseSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID30841867
PMCPMC6404305

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.