Machine Learning Approaches to Identify Thresholds in a Heat-Health Warning System Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the last two decades, a number of countries or cities established heat-health warning systems in order to alert public health authorities when some heat indicator exceeds a predetermined threshold. Different methods were considered to establish thresholds all over the world, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The common ground is that current methods are based on exposure-response function estimates that can fail in many situations. The present paper aims at proposing several data-driven methods to establish thresholds using historical data of health issues and environmental indicators. The proposed methods are model-based regression trees (MOB), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), the patient rule-induction method (PRIM) and adaptive index models (AIM). These methods focus on finding relevant splits in the association between indicators and the health outcome but do it in different fashions. A simulation study and a real-world case study hereby compare the discussed methods. Results show that proposed methods are better at predicting adverse days than current thresholds and benchmark methods. The results nonetheless suggest that PRIM is overall the more reliable method with low variability of results according to the scenario or case.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".