Cited by 32Statistical Methods and InferenceMachine Learning in HealthcareStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Time-dependent prediction and evaluation of variable importance using superlearning in high-dimensional clinical data.

Open access
Hubbard, Alan, Munoz, Ivan Diaz, Decker, Anna, Holcomb, John B., Schreiber, Martin A., Bulger, Eileen M., Brasel, Karen J., Fox, Erin E. +9 more·2013·Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prediction of outcome after injury is fraught with uncertainty and statistically beset by misspecified models. Single-time point regression only gives prediction and inference at one time, of dubious value for continuous prediction of ongoing bleeding. New statistical machine learning techniques such as SuperLearner (SL) exist to make superior prediction at iterative time points while evaluating the changing relative importance of each measured variable on an outcome. This then can provide continuously changing prediction of outcome and evaluation of which clinical variables likely drive a particular outcome. METHODS: PROMMTT data were evaluated using both naive (standard stepwise logistic regression) and SL techniques to develop a time-dependent prediction of future mortality within discrete time intervals. We avoided both underfitting and overfitting using cross validation to select an optimal combination of predictors among candidate predictors/machine learning algorithms. SL was also used to produce interval-specific robust measures of variable importance measures (VIM resulting in an ordered list of variables, by time point) that have the strongest impact on future mortality. RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty patients had complete clinical and outcome data and were included in the analysis. The prediction of ongoing transfusion with SL was superior to the naive approach for all time intervals (correlations of cross-validated predictions with the outcome were 0.819, 0.789, 0.792 for time intervals 30-90, 90-180, 180-360, >360 minutes). The estimated VIM of mortality also changed significantly at each time point. CONCLUSION: The SL technique for prediction of outcome from a complex dynamic multivariate data set is superior at each time interval to standard models. In addition, the SL VIM at each time point provides insight into the time-specific drivers of future outcome, patient trajectory, and targets for clinical intervention. Thus, this automated approach mimics clinical practice, changing form and content through time to optimize the accuracy of the prognosis based on the evolving trajectory of the patient.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ta.0b013e3182914553

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Super Learner ranks candidate algorithms by performance and applies an optimal weight to each, creating ensemble algorithms that can accurately predict transfusion requirements and mortality among trauma patients.

    “To capitalize on this phenomenon, Super Learner ranks a set of candidate algorithms20,28,38,39 by their performance and applies an optimal weight to each, creating ensemble algorithms that can accurately predict transfusion requirements and mortality among trauma patients.20,28,38,39”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Surgical Decision-making. (2020) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods (page unavailable) say SuperLearner uses cross-validation to combine candidate algorithms and select the best-performing approach. The Abstract Results and Results > Prediction report predictions of ongoing transfusion and death in trauma patients. Our copy does not specify that SuperLearner applies an optimal weight to each candidate algorithm. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [11]van der Laan M Rose S Targeted learning: causal inference for observational and experimental data 2011 New York Springer
  2. [15]van der Laan MJ Rubin DB Targeted maximum likelihood learning Int J Biostat 2006 2 PMC3126670 21969992
  3. [19]Pearl J Causality 2000 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hubbard, A., Munoz, I. D., Decker, A., Holcomb, J. B., Schreiber, M. A., Bulger, E. M., Brasel, K. J., Fox, E. E., del Junco, D. J., Wade, C. E., Rahbar, M. H., Cotton, B. A., Phelan, H. A., Myers, J. G., Alarcon, L. H., Muskat, P., & Cohen, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Published
2013-07
Volume
75
Issue
Supplement 1
Pages
S53-S60
ISSN
2163-0755 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011534852
Cited by
32
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K08GM085689)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024148)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
super learner, temporal prediction, variable importance measures, mortality prediction, blood transfusion prediction, trauma patients, ensemble learning, cross-validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Blood Transfusion, Female, Hemorrhage, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Resuscitation, Time Factors, Trauma Centers, United States, Wounds and Injuries, Models, Statistical, Injury Severity Score, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review