Author
Listed:
- Steven Habbous
- Peter C Austin
- Shabnam Balamchi
- Davood Astaraky
- Roozbeh Yousefi
- Munaza Chaudhry
- Erik Hellsten
Abstract
Introduction: Risk adjustment is critical in observational epidemiology to control for confounding of the exposure-outcome relationship. Accurate prediction of outcomes, such as mortality, can improve risk adjustment. In the present study, we compared logistic regression with a range of tree-based ensemble methods to predict 1-year mortality in the general population of Ontario, Canada. Methods: Ontario adults (age 18 years and older) who were alive as of January 1, 2022 were included. Using a window of up to 3 years, various measures of health and healthcare utilization were captured from administrative databases. To predict 1-year mortality, we applied logistic regression, random forests, extremely randomized trees, adaptive boosting, gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, Newton boosting, and CatBoost. All models also included age and sex. Performance was evaluated using the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC), the Brier score, and a quantile-based version of the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI), reported in the 30% test set. Feature importance was assessed using CatBoost’s internal model structure, supplemented with permutation feature importance, explainable boosted machines, and marginal effects. Results: A total of 12,080,801 Ontarians were included and 121,951 (1.0%) died within 1 year. Logistic regression showed excellent discrimination (AUROC 0.926; PR-AUC 0.256) and acceptable calibration (ICI 0.0022). The best model was CatBoost, which had the best discrimination (AUROC 0.933, PR-AUC 0.280) and calibration (ICI 0.0003). In sensitivity analyses of the CatBoost model, including more detailed definitions of cancer (to include its subtype) and chronic kidney disease (defined using serum creatinine instead of diagnostic codes) produced modest improvements in PR-AUC (0.290), along with substantially improved calibration amongst the highest-risk (70–100%) individuals. The most influential model-building feature was age. Residence in long-term care and receipt of palliative care was associated with the largest marginal effects. Conclusion: The machine learning model CatBoost yielded the most accurate predictive model for 1-year mortality using individual comorbidities and additional measures of healthcare utilization for the general population. These findings demonstrate that machine learning methods can enhance risk adjustment efforts in observational studies, leading to more accurate confounder control and better support for health policy and epidemiologic research.
Suggested Citation
Steven Habbous & Peter C Austin & Shabnam Balamchi & Davood Astaraky & Roozbeh Yousefi & Munaza Chaudhry & Erik Hellsten, 2026.
"Using tree-based ensemble methods to produce a population-based mortality risk score in Ontario, Canada,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-22, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0347302
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347302
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0347302. 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.