Weight-elimination neural networks applied to coronary surgery mortality prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to assess the effectiveness of the weight-elimination cost function in improving classification performance of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and to observe how changing the a priori distribution of the training set affects network performance. Backpropagation feedforward ANNs with and without weight-elimination estimated mortality for coronary artery surgery patients. The ANNs were trained and tested on cases with 32 input variables describing the patient's medical history; the output variable was in-hospital mortality (mortality rates: training 3.7%, test 3.8%). Artificial training sets with mortality rates of 20%, 50%, and 80% were created to observe the impact of training with a higher-than-normal prevalence. When the results were averaged, weight-elimination networks achieved higher sensitivity rates than those without weight-elimination. Networks trained on higher-than-normal prevalence achieved higher sensitivity rates at the cost of lower specificity and correct classification. The weight-elimination cost function can improve the classification performance when the network is trained with a higher-than-normal prevalence. A network trained with a moderately high artificial mortality rate (artificial mortality rate of 20%) can improve the sensitivity of the model without significantly affecting other aspects of the model's performance. The ANN mortality model achieved comparable performance as additive and statistical models for coronary surgery mortality estimation in the literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".