Regression trees for predicting mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease: What improvement is achieved by using ensemble‐based methods?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In biomedical research, the logistic regression model is the most commonly used method for predicting the probability of a binary outcome. While many clinical researchers have expressed an enthusiasm for regression trees, this method may have limited accuracy for predicting health outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the improvement that is achieved by using ensemble-based methods, including bootstrap aggregation (bagging) of regression trees, random forests, and boosted regression trees. We analyzed 30-day mortality in two large cohorts of patients hospitalized with either acute myocardial infarction (N = 16,230) or congestive heart failure (N = 15,848) in two distinct eras (1999-2001 and 2004-2005). We found that both the in-sample and out-of-sample prediction of ensemble methods offered substantial improvement in predicting cardiovascular mortality compared to conventional regression trees. However, conventional logistic regression models that incorporated restricted cubic smoothing splines had even better performance. We conclude that ensemble methods from the data mining and machine learning literature increase the predictive performance of regression trees, but may not lead to clear advantages over conventional logistic regression models for predicting short-term mortality in population-based samples of subjects with cardiovascular disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".