Search

Background: New methods such as machine learning techniques have been increasingly used to enhance the performance of risk predictions for clinical decision-making. However, commonly reported performance metrics may not be sufficient to capture the advantages of these newly proposed models for their adoption by health care professionals to improve care. Machine learning models often improve risk estimation for certain subpopulations that may be missed by these metrics.Methods and Results: This article addresses the limitations of commonly reported metrics for performance comparison and proposes additional metrics. Our discussions cover metrics related to overall performance, discrimination, calibration, resolution, reclassification, and model implementation. Models for predicting acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention are used to illustrate the use of these metrics.Conclusions: We demonstrate that commonly reported metrics may not have sufficient sensitivity to identify improvement of machine learning models and propose the use of a comprehensive list of performance metrics for reporting and comparing clinical risk prediction models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current ability to predict readmissions in patients with heart failure is modest at best. It is unclear whether machine learning techniques that address higher dimensional, nonlinear relationships among variables would enhance prediction. We sought to compare the effectiveness of several machine learning algorithms for predicting readmissions.Methods and Results: Using data from the Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes trial, we compared the effectiveness of random forests, boosting, random forests combined hierarchically with support vector machines or logistic regression (LR), and Poisson regression against traditional LR to predict 30- and 180-day all-cause readmissions and readmissions because of heart failure. We randomly selected 50% of patients for a derivation set, and a validation set comprised the remaining patients, validated using 100 bootstrapped iterations. We compared C statistics for discrimination and distributions of observed outcomes in risk deciles for predictive range. In 30-day all-cause readmission prediction, the best performing machine learning model, random forests, provided a 17.8% improvement over LR (mean C statistics, 0.628 and 0.533, respectively). For readmissions because of heart failure, boosting improved the C statistic by 24.9% over LR (mean C statistic 0.678 and 0.543, respectively). For 30-day all-cause readmission, the observed readmission rates in the lowest and highest deciles of predicted risk with random forests (7.8% and 26.2%, respectively) showed a much wider separation than LR (14.2% and 16.4%, respectively).Conclusions: Machine learning methods improved the prediction of readmission after hospitalization for heart failure compared with LR and provided the greatest predictive range in observed readmission rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]