Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36437306›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Machine learning did not beat logistic regression in time series prediction for severe asthma exacerbations.

Anne A H de Hond, Ilse M J Kant, Persijn J Honkoop, Andrew D Smith, Ewout W Steyerberg, Jacob K Sont

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Fast binary logistic regression.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Artificial intelligence in pediatric allergy research.European journal of pediatrics · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne A H de HondDepartment of Information Technology and Digital Innovation, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. a.a.h.de_hond@lumc.nl.
Ilse M J KantDepartment of Information Technology and Digital Innovation, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Persijn J HonkoopDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Andrew D SmithDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Wishaw, 50 Netherton Street, Wishaw, ML2 0DP, UK.
Ewout W SteyerbergClinical AI Implementation and Research Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jacob K SontDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLWishaw General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early detection of severe asthma exacerbations through home monitoring data in patients with stable mild-to-moderate chronic asthma could help to timely adjust medication. We evaluated the potential of machine learning methods compared to a clinical rule and logistic regression to predict severe exacerbations. We used daily home monitoring data from two studies in asthma patients (development: n = 165 and validation: n = 101 patients). Two ML models (XGBoost, one class SVM) and a logistic regression model provided predictions based on peak expiratory flow and asthma symptoms. These models were compared with an asthma action plan rule. Severe exacerbations occurred in 0.2% of all daily measurements in the development (154/92,787 days) and validation cohorts (94/40,185 days). The AUC of the best performing XGBoost was 0.85 (0.82-0.87) and 0.88 (0.86-0.90) for logistic regression in the validation cohort. The XGBoost model provided overly extreme risk estimates, whereas the logistic regression underestimated predicted risks. Sensitivity and specificity were better overall for XGBoost and logistic regression compared to one class SVM and the clinical rule. We conclude that ML models did not beat logistic regression in predicting short-term severe asthma exacerbations based on home monitoring data. Clinical application remains challenging in settings with low event incidence and high false alarm rates with high sensitivity.

Indexed as

AsthmaHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningSensitivity and SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID36437306
PMCPMC9701686
OpenAlexW4310275051

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.