ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Multicenter comparative analysis of local and aggregated data training strategies in COVID-19 outcome prediction with Machine learning.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Machine learning (ML) is a promising tool in assisting clinical decision-making for improving diagnosis and prognosis, especially in developing regions. It is often used with large samples, aggregating data from different regions and hospitals. However, it is unclear how this affects predictions in local centers. This study aims to compare data aggregation strategies of several hospitals in Brazil with a local training strategy in each hospital to predict two COVID-19 outcomes: Intensive Care Unit admission (ICU) and mechanical ventilation use (MV). The study included 6,046 patients from 14 hospitals, with local sample sizes ranging from 47 to 1500 patients. Machine learning models were trained using extreme gradient boosting, lightGBM, and catboost for structured data. Seven data aggregation strategies based on hospital geographic regions were compared with local training, and the best strategy was determined by analyzing the area under the ROC curve (AUROC). SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) values were used to assess the contribution of variables to predictions. Additionally, a metafeatures analysis examined how hospital characteristics influence the selection of the best strategy. The study found that the local training strategy was the most effective approach, in the case of ICU outcomes, for 11 of the 14 hospitals (79%), and, in the case of MV, for 10 hospitals (71%). Metafeatures analysis suggested that hospitals with smaller sample sizes generally performed better using an aggregated data strategy compared to local training. Our study brings to light an important concern about the impact of grouping data from different hospitals in predictive machine learning models. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the trade-off between increasing sample size and bringing together heterogeneous scenarios.
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.