arXiv subjects

Kim Luijken

Publications and source records attributed to Kim Luijken.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

The harms of class imbalance corrections for machine learning based prediction models: a simulation study

Risk prediction models are increasingly used in healthcare to aid in clinical decision making. In most clinical contexts, model calibration (i.e., assessing the reliability of risk estimates) is critical. Data available for model development are often not perfectly balanced with respect to the modeled outcome (i.e., individuals with vs. without the event of interest are not equally represented in the data). It is common for researchers to correct this class imbalance, yet, the effect of such imbalance corrections on the calibration of machine learning models is largely unknown. We studied the effect of imbalance corrections on model calibration for a variety of machine learning algorithms. Using extensive Monte Carlo simulations we compared the out-of-sample predictive performance of models developed with an imbalance correction to those developed without a correction for class imbalance across different data-generating scenarios (varying sample size, the number of predictors and event fraction). Our findings were illustrated in a case study using MIMIC-III data. In all simulation scenarios, prediction models developed without a correction for class imbalance consistently had equal or better calibration performance than prediction models developed with a correction for class imbalance. The miscalibration introduced by correcting for class imbalance was characterized by an over-estimation of risk and was not always able to be corrected with re-calibration. Correcting for class imbalance is not always necessary and may even be harmful for clinical prediction models which aim to produce reliable risk estimates on an individual basis.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

The risks of risk assessment: causal blind spots when using prediction models for treatment decisions

Clinicians increasingly rely on prediction models to guide treatment choices. Most prediction models, however, are developed using observational data that include some patients who have already received the treatment the prediction model is meant to inform. Special attention to the causal role of those earlier treatments is required when interpreting the resulting predictions. We identify 'causal blind spots' in three common approaches to handling treatment when developing a prediction model: including treatment as a predictor, restricting to individuals taking a certain treatment, and ignoring treatment. Through several real examples, we illustrate how the risks obtained from models developed using such approaches may be misinterpreted and can lead to misinformed decision-making. Our discussion covers issues attributable to confounding, selection, mediation and changes in treatment protocols over time. We advocate for an extension of guidelines for the development, reporting and evaluation of prediction models to avoid such misinterpretations. Developers must ensure that the intended target population for the model, and the treatment conditions under which predictions hold, are clearly communicated. When prediction models are intended to inform treatment decisions, they need to provide estimates of risk under the specific treatment (or intervention) options being considered, known as 'prediction under interventions'. Next to suitable data, this requires causal reasoning and causal inference techniques during model development and evaluation. Being clear about what a given prediction model can and cannot be used for prevents misinformed treatment decisions and thereby prevents potential harm to patients.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Risk-based decision making: estimands for sequential prediction under interventions

Prediction models are used amongst others to inform medical decisions on interventions. Typically, individuals with high risks of adverse outcomes are advised to undergo an intervention while those at low risk are advised to refrain from it. Standard prediction models do not always provide risks that are relevant to inform such decisions: e.g., an individual may be estimated to be at low risk because similar individuals in the past received an intervention which lowered their risk. Therefore, prediction models supporting decisions should target risks belonging to defined intervention strategies. Previous works on prediction under interventions assumed that the prediction model was used only at one time point to make an intervention decision. In clinical practice, intervention decisions are rarely made only once: they might be repeated, deferred and re-evaluated. This requires estimated risks under interventions that can be reconsidered at several potential decision moments. In the current work, we highlight key considerations for formulating estimands in sequential prediction under interventions that can inform such intervention decisions. We illustrate these considerations by giving examples of estimands for a case study about choosing between vaginal delivery and cesarean section for women giving birth. Our formalization of prediction tasks in a sequential, causal, and estimand context provides guidance for future studies to ensure that the right question is answered and appropriate causal estimation approaches are chosen to develop sequential prediction models that can inform intervention decisions.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

Prediction meets causal inference: the role of treatment in clinical prediction models

In this paper we study approaches for dealing with treatment when developing a clinical prediction model. Analogous to the estimand framework recently proposed by the European Medicines Agency for clinical trials, we propose a `predictimand' framework of different questions that may be of interest when predicting risk in relation to treatment started after baseline. We provide a formal definition of the estimands matching these questions, give examples of settings in which each is useful and discuss appropriate estimators including their assumptions. We illustrate the impact of the predictimand choice in a dataset of patients with end-stage kidney disease. We argue that clearly defining the estimand is equally important in prediction research as in causal inference.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Impact of predictor measurement heterogeneity across settings on performance of prediction models: a measurement error perspective

It is widely acknowledged that the predictive performance of clinical prediction models should be studied in patients that were not part of the data in which the model was derived. Out-of-sample performance can be hampered when predictors are measured differently at derivation and external validation. This may occur, for instance, when predictors are measured using different measurement protocols or when tests are produced by different manufacturers. Although such heterogeneity in predictor measurement between deriviation and validation data is common, the impact on the out-of-sample performance is not well studied. Using analytical and simulation approaches, we examined out-of-sample performance of prediction models under various scenarios of heterogeneous predictor measurement. These scenarios were defined and clarified using an established taxonomy of measurement error models. The results of our simulations indicate that predictor measurement heterogeneity can induce miscalibration of prediction and affects discrimination and overall predictive accuracy, to extents that the prediction model may no longer be considered clinically useful. The measurement error taxonomy was found to be helpful in identifying and predicting effects of heterogeneous predictor measurements between settings of prediction model derivation and validation. Our work indicates that homogeneity of measurement strategies across settings is of paramount importance in prediction research.

stat.ME↗