Examining the use of decision trees in population health surveillance research: an application to youth mental health survey data in the COMPASS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In population health surveillance research, survey data are commonly analyzed using regression methods; however, these methods have limited ability to examine complex relationships. In contrast, decision tree models are ideally suited for segmenting populations and examining complex interactions among factors, and their use within health research is growing. This article provides a methodological overview of decision trees and their application to youth mental health survey data. METHODS: The performance of two popular decision tree techniques, the classification and regression tree (CART) and conditional inference tree (CTREE) techniques, is compared to traditional linear and logistic regression models through an application to youth mental health outcomes in the COMPASS study. Data were collected from 74 501 students across 136 schools in Canada. Anxiety, depression and psychosocial well-being outcomes were measured along with 23 sociodemographic and health behaviour predictors. Model performance was assessed using measures of prediction accuracy, parsimony and relative variable importance. RESULTS: Decision tree and regression models consistently identified the same sets of most important predictors for each outcome, indicating a general level of agreement between methods. Tree models had lower prediction accuracy but were more parsimonious and placed greater relative importance on key differentiating factors. CONCLUSION: Decision trees provide a means of identifying high-risk subgroups to whom prevention and intervention efforts can be targeted, making them a useful tool to address research questions that cannot be answered by traditional regression methods.
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 | 0.077 | 0.233 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".