A comparison of machine learning algorithms and traditional regression-based statistical modeling for predicting hypertension incidence in a Canadian population

被引:11
|
作者
Chowdhury, Mohammad Ziaul Islam [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Leung, Alexander A. A. [1 ,4 ]
Walker, Robin L. L. [1 ,5 ]
Sikdar, Khokan C. C. [6 ]
O'Beirne, Maeve [2 ]
Quan, Hude [1 ]
Turin, Tanvir C. C. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calgary, Dept Community Hlth Sci, 3280 Hosp Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada
[2] Univ Calgary, Dept Family Med, 3330 Hosp Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
[3] Univ Calgary, Dept Psychiat, 3280 Hosp Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada
[4] Univ Calgary, Dept Med, 3280 Hosp Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4Z6, Canada
[5] Alberta Hlth Serv, Primary Hlth Care Integrat Network, Primary Hlth Care, Calgary, AB, Canada
[6] Alberta Hlth Serv, Hlth Status Assessment Surveillance & Reporting, Publ Hlth Surveillance & Infrastructure, Prov Populat & Publ Hlth, 10101 Southport Rd SW, Calgary, AB T2W 3N2, Canada
关键词
RISK PREDICTION; IMPUTATION; HEALTH; AGE;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-022-27264-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Risk prediction models are frequently used to identify individuals at risk of developing hypertension. This study evaluates different machine learning algorithms and compares their predictive performance with the conventional Cox proportional hazards (PH) model to predict hypertension incidence using survival data. This study analyzed 18,322 participants on 24 candidate features from the large Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP) to develop different prediction models. To select the top features, we applied five feature selection methods, including two filter-based: a univariate Cox p-value and C-index; two embedded-based: random survival forest and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso); and one constraint-based: the statistically equivalent signature (SES). Five machine learning algorithms were developed to predict hypertension incidence: penalized regression Ridge, Lasso, Elastic Net (EN), random survival forest (RSF), and gradient boosting (GB), along with the conventional Cox PH model. The predictive performance of the models was assessed using C-index. The performance of machine learning algorithms was observed, similar to the conventional Cox PH model. Average C-indexes were 0.78, 0.78, 0.78, 0.76, 0.76, and 0.77 for Ridge, Lasso, EN, RSF, GB and Cox PH, respectively. Important features associated with each model were also presented. Our study findings demonstrate little predictive performance difference between machine learning algorithms and the conventional Cox PH regression model in predicting hypertension incidence. In a moderate dataset with a reasonable number of features, conventional regression-based models perform similar to machine learning algorithms with good predictive accuracy.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Predicting Language Difficulties in Middle Childhood From Early Developmental Milestones: A Comparison of Traditional Regression and Machine Learning Techniques
    Armstrong, Rebecca
    Symons, Martyn
    Scott, James G.
    Arnott, Wendy L.
    Copland, David A.
    McMahon, Katie L.
    Whitehouse, Andrew J. O.
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2018, 61 (08): : 1926 - 1944
  • [43] Machine Learning Models are More Accurate Than Regression-based Models for Predicting Functional Impairment Risk in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
    Alaka, Shakiru A.
    Brobbey, Anita
    Menon, Bijoy K.
    Williamson, Tyler
    Goyal, Mayank
    Demchuk, Andrew M.
    Hill, Michael D.
    Sajobi, Tolulope
    STROKE, 2019, 50
  • [44] Soft computing techniques for predicting the compressive strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete using regression-based machine learning approaches
    Philip S.
    Nidhi M.
    Nakkeeran G.
    Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2024, 9 (2)
  • [45] Comparison of deep learning models to traditional Cox regression in predicting survival of colon cancer: Based on the SEER database
    Qu, Zihan
    Wang, Yashan
    Guo, Dingjie
    He, Guangliang
    Sui, Chuanying
    Duan, Yuqing
    Zhang, Xin
    Meng, Hengyu
    Lan, Linwei
    Liu, Xin
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2024,
  • [46] Geometrical positioning surveying-based features for BEOL line-end-pull-back modeling using regression-based machine-learning
    Hamed, Ahmed Hamed Fathi
    Hegazy, Hazem
    El-Sewefy, Omar
    Dessouky, Mohamed
    Salem, Ashraf
    JOURNAL OF MICRO-NANOPATTERNING MATERIALS AND METROLOGY-JM3, 2023, 22 (02):
  • [47] Statistical comparison of simple and machine learning based land use and land cover classification algorithms: A case study
    Rawat, K. S.
    Kumar, S.
    Garg, N.
    JOURNAL OF WATER MANAGEMENT MODELING, 2024, 32
  • [48] Comparison of Machine Learning and Logic Regression Algorithms for Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Gastric Cancer: A two-Center Study
    Lu, Tong
    Fang, Yu
    Liu, Haonan
    Chen, Chong
    Li, Taotao
    Lu, Miao
    Song, Daqing
    TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2024, 23
  • [49] Predicting the Need for Blood Transfusions in Cardiac Surgery: A Comparison between Machine Learning Algorithms and Established Risk Scores in the Brazilian Population
    da Cunha, Cristiano Berardo Carneiro
    Lima, Tiago Andrade
    Ferraz, Diogo Luiz de Magalhaes
    Silva, Igor Tiago Correia
    Santiago, Matheus Kennedy Dionisio
    Sena, Gabrielle Ribeiro
    Monteiro, Veronica Soares
    Andrade, Livia Barbosa
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2024, 39 (02)
  • [50] Modeling the Leaf Area Index of Inner Mongolia Grassland Based on Machine Learning Regression Algorithms Incorporating Empirical Knowledge
    Shen, Beibei
    Ding, Lei
    Ma, Leichao
    Li, Zhenwang
    Pulatov, Alim
    Kulenbekov, Zheenbek
    Chen, Jiquan
    Mambetova, Saltanat
    Hou, Lulu
    Xu, Dawei
    Wang, Xu
    Xin, Xiaoping
    REMOTE SENSING, 2022, 14 (17)