Comparing AI/ML approaches and classical regression for predictive modeling using large population health databases: Applications to COVID-19 case prediction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it