Comparison of machine learning methods for estimating case fatality ratios: An Ebola outbreak simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) algorithms are now increasingly used in infectious disease epidemiology. Epidemiologists should understand how ML algorithms behave within the context of outbreak data where missingness of data is almost ubiquitous. METHODS: Using simulated data, we use a ML algorithmic framework to evaluate data imputation performance and the resulting case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates, focusing on the scale and type of data missingness (i.e., missing completely at random-MCAR, missing at random-MAR, or missing not at random-MNAR). RESULTS: Across ML methods, dataset sizes and proportions of training data used, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve decreased by 7% (median, range: 1%-16%) when missingness was increased from 10% to 40%. Overall reduction in CFR bias for MAR across methods, proportion of missingness, outbreak size and proportion of training data was 0.5% (median, range: 0%-11%). CONCLUSION: ML methods could reduce bias and increase the precision in CFR estimates at low levels of missingness. However, no method is robust to high percentages of missingness. Thus, a datacentric approach is recommended in outbreak settings-patient survival outcome data should be prioritised for collection and random-sample follow-ups should be implemented to ascertain missing 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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".