Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954735›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Comparison of model feature importance statistics to identify covariates that contribute most to model accuracy in prediction of insomnia.

Alexander A Huang, Samuel Y Huang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Alexander A HuangNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Samuel Y HuangVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3663-004X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceSleep is critical to a person's physical and mental health and there is a need to create high performing machine learning models and critically understand how models rank covariates.

objectiveThe study aimed to compare how different model metrics rank the importance of various covariates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsA cross-sectional cohort study was conducted retrospectively using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is publicly available.

methodsThis study employed univariate logistic models to filter out strong, independent covariates associated with sleep disorder outcome, which were then used in machine-learning models, of which, the most optimal was chosen. The machine-learning model was used to rank model covariates based on gain, cover, and frequency to identify risk factors for sleep disorder and feature importance was evaluated using both univariable and multivariable t-statistics. A correlation matrix was created to determine the similarity of the importance of variables ranked by different model metrics.

resultsThe XGBoost model had the highest mean AUROC of 0.865 (SD = 0.010) with Accuracy of 0.762 (SD = 0.019), F1 of 0.875 (SD = 0.766), Sensitivity of 0.768 (SD = 0.023), Specificity of 0.782 (SD = 0.025), Positive Predictive Value of 0.806 (SD = 0.025), and Negative Predictive Value of 0.737 (SD = 0.034). The model metrics from the machine learning of gain and cover were strongly positively correlated with one another (r > 0.70). Model metrics from the multivariable model and univariable model were weakly negatively correlated with machine learning model metrics (R between -0.3 and 0).

conclusionThe ranking of important variables associated with sleep disorder in this cohort from the machine learning models were not related to those from regression models.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalNutrition SurveysRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID38954735
PMCPMC11218970

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.