ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing the performance of statistical, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms to predict time-to-event: A simulation study for conversion to mild cognitive impairment.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Progress on prognostic assessment methods for mild cognitive impairment].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparison of oblique random survival forest, random survival forest, and statistical models for time-to-event data using simulation study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Breaking new ground: machine learning enhances survival forecasts in hypercapnic respiratory failure.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a condition characterized by a decline in cognitive abilities, specifically in memory, language, and attention, that is beyond what is expected due to normal aging. Detection of MCI is crucial for providing appropriate interventions and slowing down the progression of dementia. There are several automated predictive algorithms for prediction using time-to-event data, but it is not clear which is best to predict the time to conversion to MCI. There is also confusion if algorithms with fewer training weights are less accurate. We compared three algorithms, from smaller to large numbers of training weights: a statistical predictive model (Cox proportional hazards model, CoxPH), a machine learning model (Random Survival Forest, RSF), and a deep learning model (DeepSurv). To compare the algorithms under different scenarios, we created a simulated dataset based on the Alzheimer NACC dataset. We found that the CoxPH model was among the best-performing models, in all simulated scenarios. In a larger sample size (n = 6,000), the deep learning algorithm (DeepSurv) exhibited comparable accuracy (73.1%) to the CoxPH model (73%). In the past, ignoring heterogeneity in the CoxPH model led to the conclusion that deep learning methods are superior. We found that when using the CoxPH model with heterogeneity, its accuracy is comparable to that of DeepSurv and RSF. Furthermore, when unobserved heterogeneity is present, such as missing features in the training, all three models showed a similar drop in accuracy. This simulation study suggests that in some applications an algorithm with a smaller number of training weights is not disadvantaged in terms of accuracy. Since algorithms with fewer weights are inherently easier to explain, this study can help artificial intelligence research develop a principled approach to comparing statistical, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms for time-to-event predictions.
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.