Search

International students' mental health has become an increasing concern in recent years, as more students leave their country for better education. They experience a wide range of challenges while studying abroad that have an impact on their psychological well-being. These challenges can include language obstacles, cultural differences, homesickness, financial issues and other elements that could severely impact the mental health of international students. Given the limited research on the demographic, cultural, and psychosocial variables that influence international students' mental health, and the scarcity of studies on the use of machine learning algorithms in this area, this study aimed to analyse data to understand the demographic, cultural factors, and psychosocial factors that impact mental health of international students. Additionally, this paper aimed to build a machine learning-based model for predicting depression among international students in the United Kingdom. This study utilized both primary data gathered through an online survey questionnaire targeted at international students and secondary data was sourced from the 'A Dataset of Students' Mental Health and Help-Seeking Behaviors in a Multicultural Environment,' focusing exclusively on international student data within this dataset. We conducted data analysis on the primary data and constructed models using the secondary data for predicting depression among international students. The secondary dataset is divided into training (70%) and testing (30%) sets for analysis, employing four machine learning models: Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and K Nearest Neighbor. To assess each algorithm's performance, we considered metrics such as Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity, Precision and AU-ROC curve. This study identifies significant demographic variables (e.g., loan status, gender, age, marital status) and psychosocial factors (financial difficulties, academic stress, homesickness, loneliness) contributing to international students' mental health. Among the machine learning models, the Random Forest model demonstrated the highest accuracy, achieving an 80% accuracy rate in predicting depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Machine learning tools have proven useful across biological disciplines, allowing researchers to draw conclusions from large datasets, and opening up new opportunities for interpreting complex and heterogeneous biological data. Alongside the rapid growth of machine learning, there have also been growing pains: some models that appear to perform well have later been revealed to rely on features of the data that are artifactual or biased; this feeds into the general criticism that machine learning models are designed to optimize model performance over the creation of new biological insights. A natural question arises: how do we develop machine learning models that are inherently interpretable or explainable? In this manuscript, we describe the SWIF(r) reliability score (SRS), a method building on the SWIF(r) generative framework that reflects the trustworthiness of the classification of a specific instance. The concept of the reliability score has the potential to generalize to other machine learning methods. We demonstrate the utility of the SRS when faced with common challenges in machine learning including: 1) an unknown class present in testing data that was not present in training data, 2) systemic mismatch between training and testing data, and 3) instances of testing data that have missing values for some attributes. We explore these applications of the SRS using a range of biological datasets, from agricultural data on seed morphology, to 22 quantitative traits in the UK Biobank, and population genetic simulations and 1000 Genomes Project data. With each of these examples, we demonstrate how the SRS can allow researchers to interrogate their data and training approach thoroughly, and to pair their domain-specific knowledge with powerful machine-learning frameworks. We also compare the SRS to related tools for outlier and novelty detection, and find that it has comparable performance, with the advantage of being able to operate when some data are missing. The SRS, and the broader discussion of interpretable scientific machine learning, will aid researchers in the biological machine learning space as they seek to harness the power of machine learning without sacrificing rigor and biological insight. Author summary: Machine learning methods are incredibly powerful at performing tasks such as classification and clustering, but they also pose unique problems that can limit new insights. Complex machine learning models may reach conclusions that are difficult or impossible for researchers to understand after-the-fact, sometimes producing biased or meaningless results. It is therefore essential that researchers have tools that allow them to understand how machine learning tools reach their conclusions, so that they can effectively design models. This paper builds on the machine learning method SWIF(r), originally designed to detect regions in the genome targeted by natural selection. Our new method, the SWIF(r) Reliability Score (SRS), can help researchers evaluate how trustworthy the prediction of a SWIF(r) model is when classifying a specific instance of data. We also show how SWIF(r) and the SRS can be used for biological problems outside the original scope of SWIF(r). We show that the SRS is helpful in situations where the data used to train the machine learning model fails to represent the testing data in some way. The SRS can be used across many different disciplines, and has unique properties for scientific machine learning research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk-based screening for lung cancer is currently being considered in several countries; however, the optimal approach to determine eligibility remains unclear. Ensemble machine learning could support the development of highly parsimonious prediction models that maintain the performance of more complex models while maximising simplicity and generalisability, supporting the widespread adoption of personalised screening. In this work, we aimed to develop and validate ensemble machine learning models to determine eligibility for risk-based lung cancer screening. Methods and findings: For model development, we used data from 216,714 ever-smokers recruited between 2006 and 2010 to the UK Biobank prospective cohort and 26,616 high-risk ever-smokers recruited between 2002 and 2004 to the control arm of the US National Lung Screening (NLST) randomised controlled trial. The NLST trial randomised high-risk smokers from 33 US centres with at least a 30 pack-year smoking history and fewer than 15 quit-years to annual CT or chest radiography screening for lung cancer. We externally validated our models among 49,593 participants in the chest radiography arm and all 80,659 ever-smoking participants in the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial. The PLCO trial, recruiting from 1993 to 2001, analysed the impact of chest radiography or no chest radiography for lung cancer screening. We primarily validated in the PLCO chest radiography arm such that we could benchmark against comparator models developed within the PLCO control arm. Models were developed to predict the risk of 2 outcomes within 5 years from baseline: diagnosis of lung cancer and death from lung cancer. We assessed model discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC), calibration (calibration curves and expected/observed ratio), overall performance (Brier scores), and net benefit with decision curve analysis. Models predicting lung cancer death (UCL-D) and incidence (UCL-I) using 3 variables—age, smoking duration, and pack-years—achieved or exceeded parity in discrimination, overall performance, and net benefit with comparators currently in use, despite requiring only one-quarter of the predictors. In external validation in the PLCO trial, UCL-D had an AUC of 0.803 (95% CI: 0.783, 0.824) and was well calibrated with an expected/observed (E/O) ratio of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.19). UCL-I had an AUC of 0.787 (95% CI: 0.771, 0.802), an E/O ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). The sensitivity of UCL-D was 85.5% and UCL-I was 83.9%, at 5-year risk thresholds of 0.68% and 1.17%, respectively, 7.9% and 6.2% higher than the USPSTF-2021 criteria at the same specificity. The main limitation of this study is that the models have not been validated outside of UK and US cohorts. Conclusions: We present parsimonious ensemble machine learning models to predict the risk of lung cancer in ever-smokers, demonstrating a novel approach that could simplify the implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening in multiple settings. Thomas Callender and colleagues present a development and validation study using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models to assess eligibility for lung cancer screening. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Screening and disease prevention programmes are increasingly bespoke; however, their simultaneous delivery at a population-scale presents considerable challenges. Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide, with poor survival in the absence of early detection. Screening for lung cancer among those at high-risk could reduce lung cancer-specific mortality by 20% to 24% among those screened, but the ideal way to determine if someone is high-risk remains uncertain and existing approaches are resource intensive. What did the researchers do and find?: We used data from the UK Biobank and US National Lung Screening Trial to develop novel, parsimonious models, to simplify the prediction of lung cancer risk and selection to lung cancer screening programmes. Using ensemble machine learning and 3 predictors—age, smoking duration, and pack-years—we found our models achieved or exceeded parity in performance with leading comparators despite requiring one-third of the variables. Our models were externally validated in the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial and benchmarked against models that are either in use or have performed strongly in previous analyses. What do these findings mean?: Risk assessment for lung cancer screening can be simplified without reducing performance, potentially improving the uptake and effectiveness of national lung cancer screening programmes, and therefore contributing to reducing deaths from lung cancer. Future research should focus on the application of this modelling approach to other conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease to support the implementation at scale of multiple concurrent risk-stratified prevention and early detection programmes for major causes of morbidity and mortality. This study has key limitations as it is based on past data from the US and UK, so prospective evaluation in different countries and regions should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are global efforts to deploy Electric Vehicles (EVs) because of the role they promise to play in energy transition. These efforts underscore the e-mobility paradigm, representing an interplay between renewable energy resources, smart technologies, and networked transportation. However, there are concerns that these initiatives could burden the electricity grid due to increased demand. Hence, the need for accurate short-term load forecasting is pivotal for the efficient planning, operation, and control of the grid and associated power systems. This study presents robust models for forecasting half-hourly and hourly loads in the UK's power system. The work leverages machine learning techniques such as Support Vector Regression (SVR), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) to develop robust prediction models using the net imports dataset from 2010 to 2020. The models were evaluated based on metrics like Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Prediction Error (MAPE), Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), and the Correlation of Determination (R2). For half-hourly forecasts, SVR performed best with an R-value of 99.85%, followed closely by GPR and ANN. But, for hourly forecasts, ANN led with an R-value of 99.71%. The findings affirm the reliability and precision of machine learning methods in short-term load forecasting, particularly highlighting the superior accuracy of the SVR model for half-hourly forecasts and the ANN model for hourly forecasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the most common movement disorder, and its prevalence is increasing rapidly worldwide with an ageing population. The UK Biobank is the world's largest and most comprehensive longitudinal study of ageing community volunteers. The cause of the common form of PD is multifactorial, but the degree of causal heterogeneity among patients or the relative importance of one risk factor over another is unclear. This is a major impediment to the discovery of disease-modifying therapies. Methods: We used an integrated machine learning algorithm (IDEARS) to explore the relative effects of 1,753 measured non-genetic variables in 334,062 eligible UK Biobank participants, including 2,719 who had developed PD since their recruitment into the study. Results: Male gender was the highest-ranked risk factor, followed by elevated serum insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), lymphocyte count, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. A group of factors aligned with the symptoms of frailty also ranked highly. IGF-1 and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were also elevated in both sexes before PD diagnosis and at the point of diagnosis. Discussion: The use of machine learning with the UK Biobank provides the best opportunity to explore the multidimensional nature of PD. Our results suggest that novel risk biomarkers, including elevated IGF-1 and NLR, may play a role in, or are indicative of PD pathomechanisms. In particular, our results are consistent with PD being a central manifestation of a systemic inflammatory disease. These biomarkers may be used clinically to predict future PD risk, improve early diagnosis and provide new therapeutic avenues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying people at risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is a cornerstone of preventative cardiology. Risk prediction models currently recommended by clinical guidelines are typically based on a limited number of predictors with sub-optimal performance across all patient groups. Data-driven techniques based on machine learning (ML) might improve the performance of risk predictions by agnostically discovering novel risk predictors and learning the complex interactions between them. We tested (1) whether ML techniques based on a state-of-the-art automated ML framework (AutoPrognosis) could improve CVD risk prediction compared to traditional approaches, and (2) whether considering non-traditional variables could increase the accuracy of CVD risk predictions. Methods and findings: Using data on 423,604 participants without CVD at baseline in UK Biobank, we developed a ML-based model for predicting CVD risk based on 473 available variables. Our ML-based model was derived using AutoPrognosis, an algorithmic tool that automatically selects and tunes ensembles of ML modeling pipelines (comprising data imputation, feature processing, classification and calibration algorithms). We compared our model with a well-established risk prediction algorithm based on conventional CVD risk factors (Framingham score), a Cox proportional hazards (PH) model based on familiar risk factors (i.e, age, gender, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, reception of treatments for hypertension and body mass index), and a Cox PH model based on all of the 473 available variables. Predictive performances were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Overall, our AutoPrognosis model improved risk prediction (AUC-ROC: 0.774, 95% CI: 0.768-0.780) compared to Framingham score (AUC-ROC: 0.724, 95% CI: 0.720-0.728, p < 0.001), Cox PH model with conventional risk factors (AUC-ROC: 0.734, 95% CI: 0.729-0.739, p < 0.001), and Cox PH model with all UK Biobank variables (AUC-ROC: 0.758, 95% CI: 0.753-0.763, p < 0.001). Out of 4,801 CVD cases recorded within 5 years of baseline, AutoPrognosis was able to correctly predict 368 more cases compared to the Framingham score. Our AutoPrognosis model included predictors that are not usually considered in existing risk prediction models, such as the individuals’ usual walking pace and their self-reported overall health rating. Furthermore, our model improved risk prediction in potentially relevant sub-populations, such as in individuals with history of diabetes. We also highlight the relative benefits accrued from including more information into a predictive model (information gain) as compared to the benefits of using more complex models (modeling gain). Conclusions: Our AutoPrognosis model improves the accuracy of CVD risk prediction in the UK Biobank population. This approach performs well in traditionally poorly served patient subgroups. Additionally, AutoPrognosis uncovered novel predictors for CVD disease that may now be tested in prospective studies. We found that the “information gain” achieved by considering more risk factors in the predictive model was significantly higher than the “modeling gain” achieved by adopting complex predictive models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care. Design: Cross sectional online survey. Participants: 1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: Investigators measured GPs’ opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace–not merely aid–the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge. Results: A total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time. Conclusions: The majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs’ in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]