↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of machine learning techniques to predict all-cause mortality using fitness data: the Henry ford exercIse testing (FIT) project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of machine learning techniques to predict all-cause mortality using fitness data: the Henry ford exercIse testing (FIT) project
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0566-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherif Sakr, Radwa Elshawi, Amjad M. Ahmed, Waqas T. Qureshi, Clinton A. Brawner, Steven J. Keteyian, Michael J. Blaha, Mouaz H. Al-Mallah

Abstract

Prior studies have demonstrated that cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a strong marker of cardiovascular health. Machine learning (ML) can enhance the prediction of outcomes through classification techniques that classify the data into predetermined categories. The aim of this study is to present an evaluation and comparison of how machine learning techniques can be applied on medical records of cardiorespiratory fitness and how the various techniques differ in terms of capabilities of predicting medical outcomes (e.g. mortality). We use data of 34,212 patients free of known coronary artery disease or heart failure who underwent clinician-referred exercise treadmill stress testing at Henry Ford Health Systems Between 1991 and 2009 and had a complete 10-year follow-up. Seven machine learning classification techniques were evaluated: Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Naïve Bayesian Classifier (BC), Bayesian Network (BN), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) and Random Forest (RF). In order to handle the imbalanced dataset used, the Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique (SMOTE) is used. Two set of experiments have been conducted with and without the SMOTE sampling technique. On average over different evaluation metrics, SVM Classifier has shown the lowest performance while other models like BN, BC and DT performed better. The RF classifier has shown the best performance (AUC = 0.97) among all models trained using the SMOTE sampling. The results show that various ML techniques can significantly vary in terms of its performance for the different evaluation metrics. It is also not necessarily that the more complex the ML model, the more prediction accuracy can be achieved. The prediction performance of all models trained with SMOTE is much better than the performance of models trained without SMOTE. The study shows the potential of machine learning methods for predicting all-cause mortality using cardiorespiratory fitness data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Student > Master 23 13%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 11 6%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 52 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 29 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 12%
Engineering 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Mathematics 8 5%
Other 38 22%
Unknown 59 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,512
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,540
of 440,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.