ArticleProceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning2020
CaliForest: Calibrated Random Forest for Health Data.
Article in Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Fusion Artificial Intelligence Model to Predict Risk for MACE and Myocarditis in Cancer Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Developing clinical prediction models: a step-by-step guide.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Prediction of central venous catheter-associated deep venous thrombosis in pediatric critical care settings.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- An Overview of Sensors, Design and Healthcare Challenges in Smart Homes: Future Design Questions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Machine learning for the life-time risk prediction of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.Brain communications · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world predictive models in healthcare should be evaluated in terms of discrimination, the ability to differentiate between high and low risk events, and calibration, or the accuracy of the risk estimates. Unfortunately, calibration is often neglected and only discrimination is analyzed. Calibration is crucial for personalized medicine as they play an increasing role in the decision making process. Since random forest is a popular model for many healthcare applications, we propose CaliForest, a new calibrated random forest. Unlike existing calibration methodologies, CaliForest utilizes the out-of-bag samples to avoid the explicit construction of a calibration set. We evaluated CaliForest on two risk prediction tasks obtained from the publicly-available MIMIC-III database. Evaluation on these binary prediction tasks demonstrates that CaliForest can achieve the same discriminative power as random forest while obtaining a better-calibrated model evaluated across six different metrics. CaliForest is published on the standard Python software repository and the code is openly available on Github.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.