A comparison of logistic regression models with alternative machine learning methods to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in emergency medical admissions via external validation
View/ Open
Faisal_et_al_Health_Informatics_Journal.pdf (1.254Mb)
Download
Keyword
Statistical modellingClassification and prediction
Computer intensive methods
Modelling healthcare services
Electronic health records
Databases and data mining
Rights
© The Author(s) 2018. The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Health Informatics Journal, vol 26/issue 1 by SAGE Publications Ltd, All rights reserved.Peer-Reviewed
YesOpen Access status
openAccess
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
We compare the performance of logistic regression with several alternative machine learning methods to estimate the risk of death for patients following an emergency admission to hospital based on the patients’ first blood test results and physiological measurements using an external validation approach. We trained and tested each model using data from one hospital (n=24696) and compared the performance of these models in data from another hospital (n=13477). We used two performance measures – the calibration slope and area under the curve (AUC). The logistic model performed reasonably well – calibration slope 0.90, AUC 0.847 compared to the other machine learning methods. Given the complexity of choosing tuning parameters of these methods, the performance of logistic regression with transformations for in-hospital mortality prediction was competitive with the best performing alternative machine learning methods with no evidence of overfitting.Version
Accepted manuscriptCitation
Faisal M, Scally A, Howes R et al (2020) A comparison of logistic regression models with alternative machine learning methods to predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in emergency medical admissions via external validation. Health Informatics Journal. 26(1): 34-44.Link to Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458218813600Type
Articleae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458218813600