Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33781921›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2021

A random forest method with feature selection for developing medical prediction models with clustered and longitudinal data.

Jaime Lynn Speiser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  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. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  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

1 author.

Jaime Lynn SpeiserDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. Electronic address: jspeiser@wakehealth.edu.

Funding

Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR001421 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MILLER, DAVID P · 2015 to 2023
$5.8M
Peripheral Nerve Function Decline in an Aged CohortR01AG028050 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI STROTMEYER, ELSA S. · 2007 to 2015
$3.5M
End of Life in the Very OldR01NR012459 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ALBERT, STEVEN M, LUNNEY, JUNE R · 2011 to 2015
$2.7M
DYNAMICS OF HEALTH .AGING . AND BODY COMPOSITION /Pittsburgh/-260962101N01AG062101 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · 1996 to 2004
$996k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001421NIA NIH HHS N01 AG062101NIA NIH HHS R01 AG028050NINR NIH HHS R01 NR012459
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning methodologies are gaining popularity for developing medical prediction models for datasets with a large number of predictors, particularly in the setting of clustered and longitudinal data. Binary Mixed Model (BiMM) forest is a promising machine learning algorithm which may be applied to develop prediction models for clustered and longitudinal binary outcomes. Although machine learning methods for clustered and longitudinal methods such as BiMM forest exist, feature selection has not been analyzed via data simulations. Feature selection improves the practicality and ease of use of prediction models for clinicians by reducing the burden of data collection. Thus, feature selection procedures are not only beneficial, but are often necessary for development of medical prediction models. In this study, we aim to assess feature selection within the BiMM forest setting for modeling clustered and longitudinal binary outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a simulation study to compare BiMM forest with feature selection (backward elimination or stepwise selection) to standard generalized linear mixed model feature selection methods (shrinkage and backward elimination). We also evaluated feature selection methods to develop models predicting mobility disability in older adults using the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study dataset as an example utilization of the proposed methodology.

resultsBiMM forest with backward elimination generally offered higher computational efficiency, similar or higher predictive performance (accuracy and area under the receiver operating curve), and similar or higher ability to identify correct features compared to linear methods for the different simulated scenarios. For predicting mobility disability in older adults, methods generally performed similarly in terms of accuracy, area under the receiver operating curve, and specificity; however, BiMM forest with backward elimination had the highest sensitivity.

conclusionsThis study is novel because it is the first investigation of feature selection for developing random forest prediction models for clustered and longitudinal binary outcomes. Results from the simulation study reveal that BiMM forest with backward elimination has the highest accuracy (performance and identification of correct features) and lowest computation time compared to other feature selection methods in some scenarios and similar performance in other scenarios. Many informatics datasets have clustered and longitudinal outcomes and results from this study suggest that BiMM forest with backward elimination may be beneficial for developing medical prediction models.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine LearningComputer SimulationLinear ModelsBinary mixed model forestClustered outcomesFeature selectionLongitudinal outcomesRandom forestVariable selection

Identifiers

PMID33781921
PMCPMC8131242

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.