Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886532›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Mortality Prediction in a Prospective Cohort of Older Adults.

Salvatore Tedesco, Martina Andrulli, Markus Åkerlund Larsson, Daniel Kelly, Antti Alamäki, Suzanne Timmons, John Barton, Joan Condell, Brendan O'Flynn, Anna Nordström

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Salvatore TedescoTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Lee Maltings Complex, Dyke Parade, T12R5CP Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7752-2240
Martina AndrulliTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Lee Maltings Complex, Dyke Parade, T12R5CP Cork, Ireland.
Markus Åkerlund LarssonDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Sustainable Health, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Daniel KellySchool of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Ulster University, Londonderry BT48 7JL, UK.
Antti AlamäkiDepartment of Physiotherapy, Karelia University of Applied Sciences, Tikkarinne 9, FI-80200 Joensuu, Finland.
Suzanne TimmonsCentre for Gerontology and Rehabilitation, University College Cork, T12XH60 Cork, Ireland.
John BartonTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Lee Maltings Complex, Dyke Parade, T12R5CP Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0671-5678
Joan CondellSchool of Computing, Engineering and Intelligent Systems, Ulster University, Londonderry BT48 7JL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3517-2182
Brendan O'FlynnTyndall National Institute, University College Cork, Lee Maltings Complex, Dyke Parade, T12R5CP Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-2597
Anna NordströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Sustainable Health, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3534-456X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As global demographics change, ageing is a global phenomenon which is increasingly of interest in our modern and rapidly changing society. Thus, the application of proper prognostic indices in clinical decisions regarding mortality prediction has assumed a significant importance for personalized risk management (i.e., identifying patients who are at high or low risk of death) and to help ensure effective healthcare services to patients. Consequently, prognostic modelling expressed as all-cause mortality prediction is an important step for effective patient management. Machine learning has the potential to transform prognostic modelling. In this paper, results on the development of machine learning models for all-cause mortality prediction in a cohort of healthy older adults are reported. The models are based on features covering anthropometric variables, physical and lab examinations, questionnaires, and lifestyles, as well as wearable data collected in free-living settings, obtained for the "Healthy Ageing Initiative" study conducted on 2291 recruited participants. Several machine learning techniques including feature engineering, feature selection, data augmentation and resampling were investigated for this purpose. A detailed empirical comparison of the impact of the different techniques is presented and discussed. The achieved performances were also compared with a standard epidemiological model. This investigation showed that, for the dataset under consideration, the best results were achieved with Random UnderSampling in conjunction with Random Forest (either with or without probability calibration). However, while including probability calibration slightly reduced the average performance, it increased the model robustness, as indicated by the lower 95% confidence intervals. The analysis showed that machine learning models could provide comparable results to standard epidemiological models while being completely data-driven and disease-agnostic, thus demonstrating the opportunity for building machine learning models on health records data for research and clinical practice. However, further testing is required to significantly improve the model performance and its robustness.

Indexed as

Epidemiological ModelsMachine LearningAgedCohort StudiesHumansProspective Studiesageingall-cause mortalityimbalanced datamachine learningmortality predictionolder adultsprediction models

Identifiers

PMID34886532
PMCPMC8657506

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.