IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0297190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the performance of statistical, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms to predict time-to-event: A simulation study for conversion to mild cognitive impairment

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Billichová
  • Lauren Joyce Coan
  • Silvester Czanner
  • Monika Kováčová
  • Fariba Sharifian
  • Gabriela Czanner

Abstract

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a condition characterized by a decline in cognitive abilities, specifically in memory, language, and attention, that is beyond what is expected due to normal aging. Detection of MCI is crucial for providing appropriate interventions and slowing down the progression of dementia. There are several automated predictive algorithms for prediction using time-to-event data, but it is not clear which is best to predict the time to conversion to MCI. There is also confusion if algorithms with fewer training weights are less accurate. We compared three algorithms, from smaller to large numbers of training weights: a statistical predictive model (Cox proportional hazards model, CoxPH), a machine learning model (Random Survival Forest, RSF), and a deep learning model (DeepSurv). To compare the algorithms under different scenarios, we created a simulated dataset based on the Alzheimer NACC dataset. We found that the CoxPH model was among the best-performing models, in all simulated scenarios. In a larger sample size (n = 6,000), the deep learning algorithm (DeepSurv) exhibited comparable accuracy (73.1%) to the CoxPH model (73%). In the past, ignoring heterogeneity in the CoxPH model led to the conclusion that deep learning methods are superior. We found that when using the CoxPH model with heterogeneity, its accuracy is comparable to that of DeepSurv and RSF. Furthermore, when unobserved heterogeneity is present, such as missing features in the training, all three models showed a similar drop in accuracy. This simulation study suggests that in some applications an algorithm with a smaller number of training weights is not disadvantaged in terms of accuracy. Since algorithms with fewer weights are inherently easier to explain, this study can help artificial intelligence research develop a principled approach to comparing statistical, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms for time-to-event predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Billichová & Lauren Joyce Coan & Silvester Czanner & Monika Kováčová & Fariba Sharifian & Gabriela Czanner, 2024. "Comparing the performance of statistical, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms to predict time-to-event: A simulation study for conversion to mild cognitive impairment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0297190
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297190
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0297190&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0297190?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu Gao & Weining Shen & Jing Ning & Ziding Feng & Jianhua Hu, 2022. "Addressing patient heterogeneity in disease predictive model development," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1045-1055, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiwen Jiang & Weining Shen, 2025. "Simultaneous Denoising and Heterogeneity Learning for Time Series Data," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 17(1), pages 62-77, April.

    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:pone00:0297190. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.