Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32498077›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2021

Machine Learning in Aging: An Example of Developing Prediction Models for Serious Fall Injury in Older Adults.

Jaime Lynn Speiser, Kathryn E Callahan, Denise K Houston, Jason Fanning, Thomas M Gill, Jack M Guralnik, Anne B Newman, Marco Pahor, W Jack Rejeski, Michael E Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Gerontologic Biostatistics and Data Science: Aging Research in the Era of Big Data.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Jaime Lynn SpeiserDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Kathryn E CallahanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Denise K HoustonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Jason FanningDepartment of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Thomas M GillDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Jack M GuralnikDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Anne B NewmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Marco PahorDepartment of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida, Gainesville.
W Jack RejeskiDepartment of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Michael E MillerDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
UF FIELD CENTERU01AG022376 · NIA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PAHOR, MARCO · 2003 to 2015
$83.3M
Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Denise Esserman · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
Wake Forest Claude D. Pepper OAIC - RenewalP30AG021332 · NIA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Jamie Nicole Justice · 2002 to 2026
$36.4M
Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001420 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ARD, JAMY D, FOLEY, KRISTIE L · 2015 to 2023
$32.3M
VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI CHRISTIAAN LEEUWENBURGH · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR001421 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MILLER, DAVID P · 2015 to 2023
$5.8M
Identifying Frailty in Primary Care: Implementation of an Electronic Medical Record-based Frailty IndexK76AG059986 · NIA · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CALLAHAN, KATHRYN · 2018 to 2022
$1.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001421NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001420NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIA NIH HHS K76 AG059986NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021332NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740NIA NIH HHS U01 AG022376
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in computational algorithms and the availability of large datasets with clinically relevant characteristics provide an opportunity to develop machine learning prediction models to aid in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of older adults. Some studies have employed machine learning methods for prediction modeling, but skepticism of these methods remains due to lack of reproducibility and difficulty in understanding the complex algorithms that underlie models. We aim to provide an overview of two common machine learning methods: decision tree and random forest. We focus on these methods because they provide a high degree of interpretability.

methodWe discuss the underlying algorithms of decision tree and random forest methods and present a tutorial for developing prediction models for serious fall injury using data from the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study.

resultsDecision tree is a machine learning method that produces a model resembling a flow chart. Random forest consists of a collection of many decision trees whose results are aggregated. In the tutorial example, we discuss evaluation metrics and interpretation for these models. Illustrated using data from the LIFE study, prediction models for serious fall injury were moderate at best (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.54 for decision tree and 0.66 for random forest).

conclusionsMachine learning methods offer an alternative to traditional approaches for modeling outcomes in aging, but their use should be justified and output should be carefully described. Models should be assessed by clinical experts to ensure compatibility with clinical practice.

Indexed as

Accidental InjuriesAgingClinical Decision RulesDecision Support TechniquesMachine LearningAccidental FallsAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrognosisReproducibility of ResultsTrauma Severity IndicesDecision support toolDecision treePrediction modelingRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID32498077
PMCPMC8011704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.