Testing Model Adequacy – A Metric Approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stoyan Veselinov Stoyanov
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yujia Lei ◽  
Paul B. Ingram ◽  
Michael S. Ternes

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 4323-4331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter J. M. Knoben ◽  
Jim E. Freer ◽  
Ross A. Woods

Abstract. A traditional metric used in hydrology to summarize model performance is the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Increasingly an alternative metric, the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE), is used instead. When NSE is used, NSE = 0 corresponds to using the mean flow as a benchmark predictor. The same reasoning is applied in various studies that use KGE as a metric: negative KGE values are viewed as bad model performance, and only positive values are seen as good model performance. Here we show that using the mean flow as a predictor does not result in KGE = 0, but instead KGE =1-√2≈-0.41. Thus, KGE values greater than −0.41 indicate that a model improves upon the mean flow benchmark – even if the model's KGE value is negative. NSE and KGE values cannot be directly compared, because their relationship is non-unique and depends in part on the coefficient of variation of the observed time series. Therefore, modellers who use the KGE metric should not let their understanding of NSE values guide them in interpreting KGE values and instead develop new understanding based on the constitutive parts of the KGE metric and the explicit use of benchmark values to compare KGE scores against. More generally, a strong case can be made for moving away from ad hoc use of aggregated efficiency metrics and towards a framework based on purpose-dependent evaluation metrics and benchmarks that allows for more robust model adequacy assessment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S162-S163
Author(s):  
Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava ◽  
Daniela Patricia Trelles-Garcia ◽  
Maria Adriana Yanez-Bello ◽  
Chul Won Chung ◽  
Sana Chaudry ◽  
...  

Abstract Background As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic develops, there is a need for prediction rules to guide clinical decisions. Previous reports have identified risk factors using statistical inference model. The primary goal of these models is to characterize the relationship between variables and outcomes, not to make predictions. In contrast, the primary purpose of machine learning is obtaining a model that can make repeatable predictions. The objective of this study is to develop decision rules tailored to our patient population to predict ICU admissions and death in patients with COVID-19. Methods We used a de-identified dataset of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 admitted to our community hospital between March 2020 and June 2020. We used a Random Forest algorithm to build the prediction models for ICU admissions and death. Random Forest is one of the most powerful machine learning algorithms; it leverages the power of multiple decision trees, randomly created, for making decisions. Results 313 patients were included; 237 patients were used to train each model, 26 were used for testing, and 50 for validation. A total of 16 variables, selected according to their availability in the Emergency Department, were fit into the models. For the survival model, the combination of age >57 years, the presence of altered mental status, procalcitonin ≥3.0 ng/mL, a respiratory rate >22, and a blood urea nitrogen >32 mg/dL resulted in a decision rule with an accuracy of 98.7% in the training model, 73.1% in the testing model, and 70% in the validation model (Table 1, Figure 1). For the ICU admission model, the combination of age < 82 years, a systolic blood pressure of ≤94 mm Hg, oxygen saturation of ≤93%, a lactate dehydrogenase >591 IU/L, and a lactic acid >1.5 mmol/L resulted in a decision rule with an accuracy of 99.6% in the training model, 80.8% in the testing model, and 82% in the validation model (Table 2, Figure 2). Table 1. Measures of Performance in Predicting Inpatient Mortality Conclusion We created decision rules using machine learning to predict ICU admission or death in patients with COVID-19. Although there are variables previously described with statistical inference, these decision rules are customized to our patient population; furthermore, we can continue to train the models fitting more data with new patients to create even more accurate prediction rules. Figure 1. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve for Inpatient Mortality Table 2. Measures of Performance in Predicting Intensive Care Unit Admission Figure 2. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve for Intensive Care Unit Admission Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


1991 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takano Takehito ◽  
Nakata Kazuyo ◽  
Kawakami Tsuyoshi ◽  
Miyazaki Yoshifumi ◽  
Murakami Masataka ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document