IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0276116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine learning outperformed logistic regression classification even with limit sample size: A model to predict pediatric HIV mortality and clinical progression to AIDS

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Domínguez-Rodríguez
  • Miquel Serna-Pascual
  • Andrea Oletto
  • Shaun Barnabas
  • Peter Zuidewind
  • Els Dobbels
  • Siva Danaviah
  • Osee Behuhuma
  • Maria Grazia Lain
  • Paula Vaz
  • Sheila Fernández-Luis
  • Tacilta Nhampossa
  • Elisa Lopez-Varela
  • Kennedy Otwombe
  • Afaaf Liberty
  • Avy Violari
  • Almoustapha Issiaka Maiga
  • Paolo Rossi
  • Carlo Giaquinto
  • Louise Kuhn
  • Pablo Rojo
  • Alfredo Tagarro
  • on behalf of EPIICAL Consortium

Abstract

Logistic regression (LR) is the most common prediction model in medicine. In recent years, supervised machine learning (ML) methods have gained popularity. However, there are many concerns about ML utility for small sample sizes. In this study, we aim to compare the performance of 7 algorithms in the prediction of 1-year mortality and clinical progression to AIDS in a small cohort of infants living with HIV from South Africa and Mozambique. The data set (n = 100) was randomly split into 70% training and 30% validation set. Seven algorithms (LR, Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Naïve Bayes (NB), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Elastic Net) were compared. The variables included as predictors were the same across the models including sociodemographic, virologic, immunologic, and maternal status features. For each of the models, a parameter tuning was performed to select the best-performing hyperparameters using 5 times repeated 10-fold cross-validation. A confusion-matrix was built to assess their accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. RF ranked as the best algorithm in terms of accuracy (82,8%), sensitivity (78%), and AUC (0,73). Regarding specificity and sensitivity, RF showed better performance than the other algorithms in the external validation and the highest AUC. LR showed lower performance compared with RF, SVM, or KNN. The outcome of children living with perinatally acquired HIV can be predicted with considerable accuracy using ML algorithms. Better models would benefit less specialized staff in limited resources countries to improve prompt referral in case of high-risk clinical progression.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Domínguez-Rodríguez & Miquel Serna-Pascual & Andrea Oletto & Shaun Barnabas & Peter Zuidewind & Els Dobbels & Siva Danaviah & Osee Behuhuma & Maria Grazia Lain & Paula Vaz & Sheila Fernández-Luis, 2022. "Machine learning outperformed logistic regression classification even with limit sample size: A model to predict pediatric HIV mortality and clinical progression to AIDS," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276116
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276116
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276116&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0276116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.