Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34202622›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Post-Analysis of Predictive Modeling with an Epidemiological Example.

Christina Brester, Ari Voutilainen, Tomi-Pekka Tuomainen, Jussi Kauhanen, Mikko Kolehmainen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Christina BresterDepartment of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1 E, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8196-2954
Ari VoutilainenInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1 C, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-0664-2675
Tomi-Pekka TuomainenInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1 C, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.
Jussi KauhanenInstitute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1 C, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.
Mikko KolehmainenDepartment of Environmental and Biological Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1 E, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

Itä-Suomen Yliopisto An early stage researcher position for Christina Brester
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-analysis of predictive models fosters their application in practice, as domain experts want to understand the logic behind them. In epidemiology, methods explaining sophisticated models facilitate the usage of up-to-date tools, especially in the high-dimensional predictor space. Investigating how model performance varies for subjects with different conditions is one of the important parts of post-analysis. This paper presents a model-independent approach for post-analysis, aiming to reveal those subjects' conditions that lead to low or high model performance, compared to the average level on the whole sample. Conditions of interest are presented in the form of rules generated by a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOGA). In this study, Lasso logistic regression (LLR) was trained to predict cardiovascular death by 2016 using the data from the 1984-1989 examination within the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study (KIHD), which contained 2682 subjects and 950 preselected predictors. After 50 independent runs of five-fold cross-validation, the model performance collected for each subject was used to generate rules describing "easy" and "difficult" cases. LLR with 61 selected predictors, on average, achieved 72.53% accuracy on the whole sample. However, during post-analysis, three categories of subjects were discovered: "Easy" cases with an LLR accuracy of 95.84%, "difficult" cases with an LLR accuracy of 48.11%, and the remaining cases with an LLR accuracy of 71.00%. Moreover, the rule analysis showed that medication was one of the main confusing factors that led to lower model performance. The proposed approach provides insightful information about subjects' conditions that complicate predictive modeling.

Indexed as

model performancemulti-objective optimizationpost-analysis of data-driven modelsprediction of cardiovascular deathrule design

Identifiers

PMID34202622
PMCPMC8304882

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.