MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410406004 · doi:10.1186/s12874-025-02561-x

Comparison of methods for tuning machine learning model hyper-parameters: with application to predicting high-need high-cost health care users

2025· article· en· W4410406004 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Meaney, Xuesong Wang, Jun Guan, Thérèse A. Stukel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine learningBayesian optimizationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRandom forestGradient boostingOverfittingBoosting (machine learning)Extreme learning machineCross-validationCalibrationStatisticsMathematicsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Supervised machine learning is increasingly being used to estimate clinical predictive models. Several supervised machine learning models involve hyper-parameters, whose values must be judiciously specified to ensure adequate predictive performance. OBJECTIVE: To compare several (nine) hyper-parameter optimization (HPO) methods, for tuning the hyper-parameters of an extreme gradient boosting model, with application to predicting high-need high-cost health care users. METHODS: Extreme gradient boosting models were estimated using a randomly sampled training dataset. Models were separately trained using nine different HPO methods: 1) random sampling, 2) simulated annealing, 3) quasi-Monte Carlo sampling, 4-5) two variations of Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via tree-Parzen estimation, 6-7) two implementations of Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via Gaussian processes, 8) Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via random forests, and 9) the covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy. For each HPO method, we estimated 100 extreme gradient boosting models at different hyper-parameter configurations; and evaluated model performance using an AUC metric on a randomly sampled validation dataset. Using the best model identified by each HPO method, we evaluated generalization performance in terms of discrimination and calibration metrics on a randomly sampled held-out test dataset (internal validation) and a temporally independent dataset (external validation). RESULTS: The extreme gradient boosting model estimated using default hyper-parameter settings had reasonable discrimination (AUC=0.82) but was not well calibrated. Hyper-parameter tuning using any HPO algorithm/sampler improved model discrimination (AUC=0.84), resulted in models with near perfect calibration, and consistently identified features predictive of high-need high-cost health care users. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, all HPO algorithms resulted in similar gains in model performance relative to baseline models. This finding likely relates to our study dataset having a large sample size, a relatively small number of features, and a strong signal to noise ratio; and would likely apply to other datasets with similar characteristics.

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 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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.385
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207