MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045793201 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3012143

A Stacking Ensemble Model to Predict Daily Number of Hospital Admissions for Cardiovascular Diseases

2020· article· en· W3045793201 on OpenAlexaff
Zhixu Hu, Hang Qiu, Ziqi Su, Minghui Shen, Ziyu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKey Research and Development Program of Sichuan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRandom forestMean squared errorMean absolute percentage errorSupport vector machineGradient boostingStackingDecision treeLasso (programming language)Linear regressionComputer scienceStatisticsMean absolute errorArtificial intelligenceFeature selectionMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With lifestyle and environmental changes, the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) is trending upwards, putting pressure on the limited medical resources. Accurate forecasting of daily counts of hospital admissions (HAs) for CVDs is helpful to optimize medical resources. In this study, we proposed a stacking ensemble model with direct prediction strategy to predict the daily number of CVDs admissions using HAs data, air pollution data, and meteorological data. The sequential forward floating selection method with early stopping was applied for feature selection. Five machine learning models, including linear regression (LR), support vector regression (SVR), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), were utilized as base learners to construct the stacking model. We compared the performance of the proposed stacking model with the five base learners in three datasets. The experimental results indicated that our model performed best in three datasets under four evaluation criteria, including mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and coefficient of determination (R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> ). Particularly, in the CVDs dataset, the MAPE is 15.103 for LR, 11.862 for SVR, 10.571 for XGBoost, 10.378 for GBDT, 10.333 for RF, and 9.679 for the stacking model. Compared with the best base learner RF, the MAPE, RMSE, and MAE of the stacking model decreased by 6.3%, 7.4%, and 6.3%, respectively, and the R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> improved by 1.7%. It is evident that the proposed stacking model can effectively forecast the daily number of hospitalizations for CVDs and provide decision support for hospital managers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207