Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37337173›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2023

Use and misuse of random forest variable importance metrics in medicine: demonstrations through incident stroke prediction.

Meredith L Wallace, Lucas Mentch, Bradley J Wheeler, Amanda L Tapia, Marc Richards, Siyu Zhou, Lixia Yi, Susan Redline, Daniel J Buysse

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meredith L WallaceDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15231, USA. lotzmj@upmc.edu.
Lucas MentchDepartment of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Bradley J WheelerSchool of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Amanda L TapiaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15231, USA.
Marc RichardsDepartment of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Siyu ZhouDepartment of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lixia YiDepartment of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Susan RedlineBrigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Daniel J BuysseDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15231, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

Subject Management and BiobankingP50DA046346 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Daniel J. Buysse, Colleen A McClung · 2020 to 2026
$23.4M
Sleep Health Profiles Predicting Impaired Cognition and Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults: Extending Novel Statistical Methods in Multi-Cohort ApplicationsRF1AG056331 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WALLACE, MEREDITH JOANNE LOTZ · 2021 to 2021
$2.0M
High-Throughput Computing for Genomics and Bioinformatics ResearchS10OD028483 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LEE, ADRIAN V · 2021 to 2021
$574k
NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG056331NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA046346NIH HHS S10 OD028483
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning tools such as random forests provide important opportunities for modeling large, complex modern data generated in medicine. Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding why machine learning models are predictive, applied research continues to rely on 'out of bag' (OOB) variable importance metrics (VIMPs) that are known to have considerable shortcomings within the statistics community. After explaining the limitations of OOB VIMPs - including bias towards correlated features and limited interpretability - we describe a modern approach called 'knockoff VIMPs' and explain its advantages.

methodsWe first evaluate current VIMP practices through an in-depth literature review of 50 recent random forest manuscripts. Next, we recommend organized and interpretable strategies for analysis with knockoff VIMPs, including computing them for groups of features and considering multiple model performance metrics. To demonstrate methods, we develop a random forest to predict 5-year incident stroke in the Sleep Heart Health Study and compare results based on OOB and knockoff VIMPs.

resultsNearly all papers in the literature review contained substantial limitations in their use of VIMPs. In our demonstration, using OOB VIMPs for individual variables suggested two highly correlated lung function variables (forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity) as the best predictors of incident stroke, followed by age and height. Using an organized analytic approach that considered knockoff VIMPs of both groups of features and individual features, the largest contributions to model sensitivity were medications (especially cardiovascular) and measured medical risk factors, while the largest contributions to model specificity were age, diastolic blood pressure, self-reported medical risk factors, polysomnography features, and pack-years of smoking. Thus, we reach very different conclusions about stroke risk factors using OOB VIMPs versus knockoff VIMPs.

conclusionsThe near-ubiquitous reliance on OOB VIMPs may provide misleading results for researchers who use such methods to guide their research. Given the rapid pace of scientific inquiry using machine learning, it is essential to bring modern knockoff VIMPs that are interpretable and unbiased into widespread applied practice to steer researchers using random forest machine learning toward more meaningful results.

Indexed as

Random ForestStrokeBenchmarkingHumansMachine LearningSleepFeature importanceKnockoff variable importancePolysomnographyRandom forestSleep

Identifiers

PMID37337173
PMCPMC10280951
OpenAlexW4381190638

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.