IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0344354.html

Predictive divergence in machine learning models for clinical mortality risk: A multicohort study of covid-19 patients

Author

Listed:
  • Júlia Chaves Neuenschwander Magalhães
  • Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto Filho

Abstract

Background: Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly used in healthcare to support clinical decision-making. While models with similar overall performance are often considered interchangeable for deployment, they may produce divergent predictions, a phenomenon known as algorithmic multiplicity. In such cases, the choice of algorithm may introduce bias. This study investigates the impacts of algorithmic multiplicity in mortality prediction and assesses the influence of patient characteristics on model decisions. Methods: A cohort of 4,337 adult patients (≥18 years) with RT-PCR–confirmed covid-19 from five tertiary care hospitals in Brazil was followed from March to August 2020. Five popular ML models for structured data were trained on demographic and laboratory data collected at early hospital admission to predict in-hospital mortality. Model performance, feature importance, and algorithmic prediction similarity were evaluated. Feature distributions were compared between patients correctly or incorrectly classified by all models using paired t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests, as applicable, at the 5% significance level. Subgroup performance differences were assessed using 10-fold cross-validation applied to five k-means–delineated clusters, compared by one-way ANOVA. Within-cluster predictive divergence was assessed within a 95% confidence interval. Results: All models achieved high overall predictive performance (µ = 0.855, σ² = 0.0072). However, the comparison of individual-level predictions revealed substantial heterogeneity, with pairwise prediction correlations ranging from R² = 0.56 to 0.80. Unsupervised k-means clustering identified five clinically distinct patient subgroups with mortality rates ranging from 22% to 80%, within which model performance varied significantly (F = 73.18, p

Suggested Citation

  • Júlia Chaves Neuenschwander Magalhães & Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto Filho, 2026. "Predictive divergence in machine learning models for clinical mortality risk: A multicohort study of covid-19 patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0344354
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0344354
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0344354&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0344354?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:pone00:0344354. 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.