Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30917171›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Prediction of premature all-cause mortality: A prospective general population cohort study comparing machine-learning and standard epidemiological approaches.

Stephen F Weng, Luis Vaz, Nadeem Qureshi, Joe Kai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
52.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen F WengNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5281-9590
Luis VazNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2184-1234
Nadeem QureshiNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4909-0644
Joe KaiNIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic modelling using standard methods is well-established, particularly for predicting risk of single diseases. Machine-learning may offer potential to explore outcomes of even greater complexity, such as premature death. This study aimed to develop novel prediction algorithms using machine-learning, in addition to standard survival modelling, to predict premature all-cause mortality.

methodsA prospective population cohort of 502,628 participants aged 40-69 years were recruited to the UK Biobank from 2006-2010 and followed-up until 2016. Participants were assessed on a range of demographic, biometric, clinical and lifestyle factors. Mortality data by ICD-10 were obtained from linkage to Office of National Statistics. Models were developed using deep learning, random forest and Cox regression. Calibration was assessed by comparing observed to predicted risks; and discrimination by area under the 'receiver operating curve' (AUC).

findings14,418 deaths (2.9%) occurred over a total follow-up time of 3,508,454 person-years. A simple age and gender Cox model was the least predictive (AUC 0.689, 95% CI 0.681-0.699). A multivariate Cox regression model significantly improved discrimination by 6.2% (AUC 0.751, 95% CI 0.748-0.767). The application of machine-learning algorithms further improved discrimination by 3.2% using random forest (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.776-0.791) and 3.9% using deep learning (AUC 0.790, 95% CI 0.783-0.797). These ML algorithms improved discrimination by 9.4% and 10.1% respectively from a simple age and gender Cox regression model. Random forest and deep learning achieved similar levels of discrimination with no significant difference. Machine-learning algorithms were well-calibrated, while Cox regression models consistently over-predicted risk.

conclusionsMachine-learning significantly improved accuracy of prediction of premature all-cause mortality in this middle-aged population, compared to standard methods. This study illustrates the value of machine-learning for risk prediction within a traditional epidemiological study design, and how this approach might be reported to assist scientific verification.

Indexed as

Mortality, PrematureAdultAgedBiological Specimen BanksDeep LearningFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesROC CurveUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID30917171
PMCPMC6436798
OpenAlexW2923291095

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.