Bayesian Model Averaging for Selection of a Risk Prediction Model for Death within Thirty Days of Discharge: The SILVER-AMI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a selection process for a multivariable risk prediction model of death within 30 days of hospital discharge in the SILVER-AMI study. This large, multi-site observational study included observational data from 2000 persons 75 years and older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 94 community and academic hospitals across the United States and featured a large number of candidate variables from demographic, cardiac, and geriatric domains, whose missing values were multiply imputed prior to model selection. Our objective was to demonstrate that Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) represents a viable model selection approach in this context. BMA was compared to three other backward-selection approaches: Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, and traditional p-value. Traditional backward-selection was used to choose 20 candidate variables from the initial, larger pool of five imputations. Models were subsequently chosen from those candidates using the four approaches on each of 10 imputations. With average posterior effect probability ≥ 50% as the selection criterion, BMA chose the most parsimonious model with four variables, with average C statistic of 78%, good calibration, optimism of 1.3%, and heuristic shrinkage of 0.93. These findings illustrate the utility and flexibility of using BMA for selecting a multivariable risk prediction model from many candidates over multiply imputed datasets.
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 | 0.039 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".