Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31746764›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Interpretability and Class Imbalance in Prediction Models for Pain Volatility in Manage My Pain App Users: Analysis Using Feature Selection and Majority Voting Methods.

Quazi Abidur Rahman, Tahir Janmohamed, Hance Clarke, Paul Ritvo, Jane Heffernan, Joel Katz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Moving towards the use of artificial intelligence in pain management.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Quazi Abidur RahmanDepartment of Computer Science, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9031-676X
Tahir JanmohamedManagingLife, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7006-4358
Hance ClarkeDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4975-3823
Paul RitvoDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1141-0083
Jane HeffernanDepartment of Computer Science, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9502-1688
Joel KatzDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8686-447X
York University · CALakehead University · CAToronto General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain volatility is an important factor in chronic pain experience and adaptation. Previously, we employed machine-learning methods to define and predict pain volatility levels from users of the Manage My Pain app. Reducing the number of features is important to help increase interpretability of such prediction models. Prediction results also need to be consolidated from multiple random subsamples to address the class imbalance issue.

objectiveThis study aimed to: (1) increase the interpretability of previously developed pain volatility models by identifying the most important features that distinguish high from low volatility users; and (2) consolidate prediction results from models derived from multiple random subsamples while addressing the class imbalance issue.

methodsA total of 132 features were extracted from the first month of app use to develop machine learning-based models for predicting pain volatility at the sixth month of app use. Three feature selection methods were applied to identify features that were significantly better predictors than other members of the large features set used for developing the prediction models: (1) Gini impurity criterion; (2) information gain criterion; and (3) Boruta. We then combined the three groups of important features determined by these algorithms to produce the final list of important features. Three machine learning methods were then employed to conduct prediction experiments using the selected important features: (1) logistic regression with ridge estimators; (2) logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; and (3) random forests. Multiple random under-sampling of the majority class was conducted to address class imbalance in the dataset. Subsequently, a majority voting approach was employed to consolidate prediction results from these multiple subsamples. The total number of users included in this study was 879, with a total number of 391,255 pain records.

resultsA threshold of 1.6 was established using clustering methods to differentiate between 2 classes: low volatility (n=694) and high volatility (n=185). The overall prediction accuracy is approximately 70% for both random forests and logistic regression models when using 132 features. Overall, 9 important features were identified using 3 feature selection methods. Of these 9 features, 2 are from the app use category and the other 7 are related to pain statistics. After consolidating models that were developed using random subsamples by majority voting, logistic regression models performed equally well using 132 or 9 features. Random forests performed better than logistic regression methods in predicting the high volatility class. The consolidated accuracy of random forests does not drop significantly (601/879; 68.4% vs 618/879; 70.3%) when only 9 important features are included in the prediction model.

conclusionsWe employed feature selection methods to identify important features in predicting future pain volatility. To address class imbalance, we consolidated models that were developed using multiple random subsamples by majority voting. Reducing the number of features did not result in a significant decrease in the consolidated prediction accuracy.

Indexed as

chronic paincluster analysisdata miningmachine learningManage My Painpain apppain volatilityprediction model

Identifiers

PMID31746764
PMCPMC6913759
OpenAlexW2989850715

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.