MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403140655 · doi:10.1016/j.gloepi.2024.100168

Comparing AI/ML approaches and classical regression for predictive modeling using large population health databases: Applications to COVID-19 case prediction

2024· article· en· W4403140655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Epidemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalLarus Technologies (Canada)Institut du Savoir MontfortInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)RegressionPopulationComputer sciencePredictive modellingDatabaseArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMachine learningMedicineMathematicsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research comparing artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) methods with classical statistical methods applied to large population health databases is limited. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the predictive performance of AI/ML algorithms against conventional multivariate logistic regression models using linked health administrative data. Using Ontario's population health databases, we created a cohort of residents of the city of Ottawa, Ontario, who underwent a PCR test for COVID-19 between March 10, 2020, and May 13, 2021. Using demographic, socio-economic and health data (including COVID-19 PCR test results and available, symptom data), we developed predictive models for the purpose of COVID-19 case identification using the following approaches: classical multivariate logistic regression (LR); deep neural network (DNN); random forest (RF); and gradient boosting trees (GBT). Model performance comparisons were made using the area under the curve (AUC) swarm plot for 10-fold cross-validation. The cohort consisted of n = 351,248 Ottawa residents tested for COVID-19 during the study period. Among whom, a total of n = 883,879 unique COVID-19 tests were performed (2.6 % positive test results). Inclusion of COVID-19 symptoms data in the analysis improved model performance and variable predictive value across all tested models ( p < 0.0001), with the 10-fold cross-validation AUC increasing to near or over 0.7 in all models when symptoms data were included. In various pairwise comparisons, the GBT method had the highest predictive ability (AUC = 0.796 ± 0.017), significantly outperforming multivariate logistic regression and the other AI/ML approaches. Conventional multivariate regression-based models are better than some and worse than other machine learning algorithms to provide good predictive accuracy in a moderate dataset with a reasonable number of features. However, whenever possible, the AI/ML GBT approach should be considered. • AI/ML approaches compare well with multivariate logistic regression to provide good predictive accuracy in moderate datasets. • The extreme gradient boosting trees (GBT) approach performed better than logistic regression and other AI/ML approaches. • Logistic regression performed better than random forest (RF) and better than deep neural network (DNN) with symptom data. • Inclusion of COVID-19 symptom data significantly increased all model performance and variable predictive value.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.380
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.124 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it