MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162008270 · doi:10.82308/11374

Explainable machine learning and social determinants of health in stroke prediction

2024· dissertation· en· W7162008270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gauri Sharma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilitySocial determinants of healthGradient boostingPredictive modellingHealth careBoosting (machine learning)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Current stroke prediction models, relying solely on traditional medical data, overlook the role of Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) like socioeconomic status and education. This narrow focus can lead to inaccurate predictions, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities and hindering the development of effective preventive measures. This work investigates the role of SDoH in stroke and how incorporating SDoH data into AI models can improve stroke prediction, ultimately empowering healthcare providers with a more holistic view of patient risk for better decision-making and equitable healthcare delivery.Research Objectives:1. To improve the performance of stroke prediction AI models by integrating SDoH into these models.2. To ensure transparency and interpretability in stroke prediction through the application of explainable AI (XAI) methodologies.Method: The study employs datasets from the Institut de la statistique du Québec that include both clinical indicators (e.g. diabetes, heart disease, weight) and SDoH (e.g.economic, neighbourhood conditions). We applied seven machine learning models (Random Forest), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), CatBoost (CB), XGBoost (XGB), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM), Neural Networks (NN), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) alongside XAI techniques to investigate the role SDoH plays in the models’ predictive performances. XAI methods such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) and LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) were implemented, shedding light on the influence of SDoH in the algorithms’ predictions. Performance of models was evaluated using standard metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score and AUC (Area under the curve).Results: Our study investigated the impact of incorporating SDoH data into stroke prediction models. SDoH data variably improved performance depending on the model and specific SDoH factors incorporated, illustrating its important role alongside traditional medical data in assessing stroke risk. Our LGBM model showed maximum improvement on incorporation of SDoH features where its accuracy improved by 11.2% (from 65.9% to 77.1%). The inclusion of demographic, economic, and personal SDoH factors were the most influential. XAI methods revealed self-perceived health and stress levels as key factors for stroke prediction, emphasizing the importance of personal well-being in stroke assessment. Notably, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) model achieved the best performance, demonstrating an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 81%. This translates to accuracy of 77.6%, precision of 78.6%, recall of 75.5%, and F1 score of 77.0%, showcasing LGBM’s proficiency in handling the complex relationships within SDoH data. These findings suggest the importance and potential of SDoH-integrated AI models for improved stroke prediction.Conclusion: Our findings highlight the role of SDoH data in building accurate and equitable healthcare models. Integrating SDoH factors improve stroke prediction accuracy by 1% to 3%, and foster fairer and more comprehensive patient risk assessments by considering the broader social and environmental influences on health. Furthermore, XAI techniques provide deeper insights into how SDoH and other factors contribute to predictions, promoting transparency and interpretability in these AI-driven solutions. This transparency is essential for building trust and ensuring ethically sound decision-making in healthcare

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→