Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques with Classical Statistical Models in Predicting Health Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several machine learning techniques (multilayer and single layer perceptron, logistic regression, least square linear separation and support vector machines) are applied to calculate the risk of death from two biomedical data sets, one from patient care records, and another from a population survey. Each dataset contained multiple sources of information: history of related symptoms and other illnesses, physical examination findings, laboratory tests, medications (patient records dataset), health attitudes, and disabilities in activities of daily living (survey dataset). Each technique showed very good mortality prediction in the acute patients data sample (AUC up to 0.89) and fair prediction accuracy for six year mortality (AUC from 0.70 to 0.76) in individuals from epidemiological database surveys. The results suggest that the nature of data is of primary importance rather than the learning technique. However, the consistently superior performance of the artificial neural network (multi-layer perceptron) indicates that nonlinear relationships (which cannot be discerned by linear separation techniques) can provide additional improvement in correctly predicting health outcomes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it