Performance and explainability of feature selection-boosted tree-based classifiers for COVID-19 detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we evaluate the performance and analyze the explainability of machine learning models boosted by feature selection in predicting COVID-19-positive cases from self-reported information. In essence, this work describes a methodology to identify COVID-19 infections that considers the large amount of information collected by the University of Maryland Global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey (UMD-CTIS). More precisely, this methodology performs a feature selection stage based on the recursive feature elimination (RFE) method to reduce the number of input variables without compromising detection accuracy. A tree-based supervised machine learning model is then optimized with the selected features to detect COVID-19-active cases. In contrast to previous approaches that use a limited set of selected symptoms, the proposed approach builds the detection engine considering a broad range of features including self-reported symptoms, local community information, vaccination acceptance, and isolation measures, among others. To implement the methodology, three different supervised classifiers were used: random forests (RF), light gradient boosting (LGB), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Based on data collected from the UMD-CTIS, we evaluated the detection performance of the methodology for four countries (Brazil, Canada, Japan, and South Africa) and two periods (2020 and 2021). The proposed approach was assessed in terms of various quality metrics: F1-score, sensitivity, specificity, precision, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and area under the ROC curve (AUC). This work also shows the normalized daily incidence curves obtained by the proposed approach for the four countries. Finally, we perform an explainability analysis using Shapley values and feature importance to determine the relevance of each feature and the corresponding contribution for each country and each country/year.
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".