Assessing the transportability of clinical prediction models for cognitive impairment using causal models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Machine learning models promise to support diagnostic predictions, but may not perform well in new settings. Selecting the best model for a new setting without available data is challenging. We aimed to investigate the transportability by calibration and discrimination of prediction models for cognitive impairment in simulated external settings with different distributions of demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods We mapped and quantified relationships between variables associated with cognitive impairment using causal graphs, structural equation models, and data from the ADNI study. These estimates were then used to generate datasets and evaluate prediction models with different sets of predictors. We measured transportability to external settings under guided interventions on age, APOE ε4, and tau-protein, using differences between internal and external settings measured by calibration metrics and area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results Calibration differences indicated that models predicting with causes of the outcome were more transportable than those predicting with consequences. AUC differences indicated inconsistent trends of transportability between the different external settings. Models predicting with consequences tended to show higher AUC in the external settings compared to internal settings, while models with parents or all variables showed similar AUC. Conclusions We demonstrated with a practical prediction task example that predicting with causes of the outcome results in better transportability compared to anti-causal predictions measured by calibration differences. We conclude that calibration differences are more suitable than AUC differences to assess model transportability to external settings.
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 | 0.036 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".