Comparison of predictive models using logistic regression, classification tree, and structural equation model for severe dengue.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Journal of Infectious Diseases Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiae366
Hyelan Lee, Anon Srikiatkhachorn, Siripen Kalayanarooj, Aaron R Farmer, Sangshin Park
{"title":"Comparison of predictive models using logistic regression, classification tree, and structural equation model for severe dengue.","authors":"Hyelan Lee, Anon Srikiatkhachorn, Siripen Kalayanarooj, Aaron R Farmer, Sangshin Park","doi":"10.1093/infdis/jiae366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of three statistical models-logistic regression, classification tree, and structural equation model (SEM)-in predicting severe dengue illness.</p><p><strong>Methods/findings: </strong>We adopted modified classification of dengue illness severity based on WHO 1997 guideline. Predictive models were constructed using demographic factors and laboratory indicators on the day of fever occurrence. We developed statistical predictive models using data from two hospital cohorts in Thailand, consisting of 257 Thai children. Different predictive models for each category of severe dengue illness were developed employing logistic regression, classification tree, and SEM. The probability of discrimination of each model for severe output of disease was analyzed with external validation data sets from 55 and 700 patients not used in model development. From external validation using predictors on the day of presentation to the hospital, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was between 0.65 and 0.84 for the regression model. It was between 0.73 and 0.85 for SEM models. Classification tree models showed good results of sensitivity, ranging from 0.95 to 0.99. However, they showed poor specificity ranging from 0.10 to 0.44.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study showed that SEM is comparable to logistic regression or classification tree, which was widely used for more severe form of dengue prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":50179,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae366","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of three statistical models-logistic regression, classification tree, and structural equation model (SEM)-in predicting severe dengue illness.

Methods/findings: We adopted modified classification of dengue illness severity based on WHO 1997 guideline. Predictive models were constructed using demographic factors and laboratory indicators on the day of fever occurrence. We developed statistical predictive models using data from two hospital cohorts in Thailand, consisting of 257 Thai children. Different predictive models for each category of severe dengue illness were developed employing logistic regression, classification tree, and SEM. The probability of discrimination of each model for severe output of disease was analyzed with external validation data sets from 55 and 700 patients not used in model development. From external validation using predictors on the day of presentation to the hospital, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was between 0.65 and 0.84 for the regression model. It was between 0.73 and 0.85 for SEM models. Classification tree models showed good results of sensitivity, ranging from 0.95 to 0.99. However, they showed poor specificity ranging from 0.10 to 0.44.

Conclusions: Our study showed that SEM is comparable to logistic regression or classification tree, which was widely used for more severe form of dengue prediction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用逻辑回归、分类树和结构方程模型对严重登革热的预测模型进行比较。
背景:本研究旨在比较三种统计模型--逻辑回归、分类树和结构方程模型(SEM)--在预测登革热重症方面的预测性能:我们采用了根据世界卫生组织 1997 年指南修改的登革热病严重程度分类法。利用人口统计学因素和发烧当天的实验室指标构建了预测模型。我们利用来自泰国两家医院队列的数据开发了统计预测模型,这些队列由 257 名泰国儿童组成。我们利用逻辑回归、分类树和 SEM 为每一类登革热重症建立了不同的预测模型。利用未用于模型开发的 55 名和 700 名患者的外部验证数据集,分析了每个模型对严重疾病输出的判别概率。通过使用入院当天的预测因子进行外部验证,回归模型的接收者操作特征曲线下面积介于 0.65 和 0.84 之间。SEM 模型的接收者操作特征曲线下面积介于 0.73 和 0.85 之间。分类树模型的灵敏度较高,在 0.95 至 0.99 之间。结论:我们的研究表明,SEM 可与逻辑回归或分类树相媲美,后者被广泛用于预测更严重的登革热。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
3.10%
发文量
449
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1904, The Journal of Infectious Diseases (JID) is the premier global journal for original research on infectious diseases. The editors welcome Major Articles and Brief Reports describing research results on microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and related disciplines, on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases; on the microbes that cause them; and on disorders of host immune responses. JID is an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
期刊最新文献
Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and COVID-19 Vaccination in 4 Phase 3 Trials. In depth analysis of the HIV reservoir confirms effectiveness and safety of DTG/3TC in a phase 4 randomized controlled switch trial (RUMBA). Elevated Plasma Matrix Metalloproteinases Are Associated With Mycobacterium tuberculosis Bloodstream Infection and Mortality in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Associated Tuberculosis. Sustained Spread of HIV-1 CRF55_01B in Its Place of Initial Origin: Dynamics and Hotspots. CDC-Funded HIV Testing Services Outcomes in Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. (EHE) and Non-EHE Jurisdictions, 2021.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1