Comparison of machine learning algorithms applied to symptoms to determine infectious causes of death in children: national survey of 18,000 verbal autopsies in the Million Death Study in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been successfully employed for prediction of outcomes in clinical research. In this study, we have explored the application of ML-based algorithms to predict cause of death (CoD) from verbal autopsy records available through the Million Death Study (MDS). METHODS: From MDS, 18826 unique childhood deaths at ages 1-59 months during the time period 2004-13 were selected for generating the prediction models of which over 70% of deaths were caused by six infectious diseases (pneumonia, diarrhoeal diseases, malaria, fever of unknown origin, meningitis/encephalitis, and measles). Six popular ML-based algorithms such as support vector machine, gradient boosting modeling, C5.0, artificial neural network, k-nearest neighbor, classification and regression tree were used for building the CoD prediction models. RESULTS: SVM algorithm was the best performer with a prediction accuracy of over 0.8. The highest accuracy was found for diarrhoeal diseases (accuracy = 0.97) and the lowest was for meningitis/encephalitis (accuracy = 0.80). The top signs/symptoms for classification of these CoDs were also extracted for each of the diseases. A combination of signs/symptoms presented by the deceased individual can effectively lead to the CoD diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study affirms that verbal autopsy tools are efficient in CoD diagnosis and that automated classification parameters captured through ML could be added to verbal autopsies to improve classification of causes of death.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".