A Large-Scale Neutral Comparison Study of Survival Models on Low-Dimensional Data

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04098v1
• Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 14:13:38 GMT
• Title: A Large-Scale Neutral Comparison Study of Survival Models on Low-Dimensional Data
• Authors: Lukas Burk, John Zobolas, Bernd Bischl, Andreas Bender, Marvin N. Wright, Raphael Sonabend,
• Abstract summary: This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. We benchmark 18 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 32 publicly available datasets.
• Score: 7.199059106376138
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. Benchmark experiments are essential in methodological research to scientifically compare new and existing model classes through proper empirical evaluation. Existing benchmarks in the survival literature are often narrow in scope, focusing, for example, on high-dimensional data. Additionally, they may lack appropriate tuning or evaluation procedures, or are qualitative reviews, rather than quantitative comparisons. This comprehensive study aims to fill the gap by neutrally evaluating a broad range of methods and providing generalizable conclusions. We benchmark 18 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 32 publicly available datasets. The benchmark tunes for both a discrimination measure and a proper scoring rule to assess performance in different settings. Evaluating on 8 survival metrics, we assess discrimination, calibration, and overall predictive performance of the tested models. Using discrimination measures, we find that no method significantly outperforms the Cox model. However, (tuned) Accelerated Failure Time models were able to achieve significantly better results with respect to overall predictive performance as measured by the right-censored log-likelihood. Machine learning methods that performed comparably well include Oblique Random Survival Forests under discrimination, and Cox-based likelihood-boosting under overall predictive performance. We conclude that for predictive purposes in the standard survival analysis setting of low-dimensional, right-censored data, the Cox Proportional Hazards model remains a simple and robust method, sufficient for practitioners.

Related papers

• DRoP: Distributionally Robust Pruning [11.930434318557156]
  We conduct the first systematic study of the impact of data pruning on classification bias of trained models. We propose DRoP, a distributionally robust approach to pruning and empirically demonstrate its performance on standard computer vision benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:55:35Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• An Effective Meaningful Way to Evaluate Survival Models [34.21432603301076]
  In practice, the test set includes (right) censored individuals, meaning we do not know when a censored individual actually experienced the event. We introduce a novel and effective approach for generating realistic semi-synthetic survival datasets. Our proposed metric is able to rank models accurately based on their performance, and often closely matches the true MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:22:46Z)
• Benchmarking common uncertainty estimation methods with histopathological images under domain shift and label noise [62.997667081978825]
  In high-risk environments, deep learning models need to be able to judge their uncertainty and reject inputs when there is a significant chance of misclassification. We conduct a rigorous evaluation of the most commonly used uncertainty and robustness methods for the classification of Whole Slide Images. We observe that ensembles of methods generally lead to better uncertainty estimates as well as an increased robustness towards domain shifts and label noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T11:34:36Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• fAux: Testing Individual Fairness via Gradient Alignment [2.5329739965085785]
  We describe a new approach for testing individual fairness that does not have either requirement. We show that the proposed method effectively identifies discrimination on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T21:27:20Z)
• Selecting the suitable resampling strategy for imbalanced data classification regarding dataset properties [62.997667081978825]
  In many application domains such as medicine, information retrieval, cybersecurity, social media, etc., datasets used for inducing classification models often have an unequal distribution of the instances of each class. This situation, known as imbalanced data classification, causes low predictive performance for the minority class examples. Oversampling and undersampling techniques are well-known strategies to deal with this problem by balancing the number of examples of each class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T18:56:39Z)
• Robust Fairness-aware Learning Under Sample Selection Bias [17.09665420515772]
  We propose a framework for robust and fair learning under sample selection bias. We develop two algorithms to handle sample selection bias when test data is both available and unavailable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T23:23:36Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)
• Performance metrics for intervention-triggering prediction models do not reflect an expected reduction in outcomes from using the model [71.9860741092209]
  Clinical researchers often select among and evaluate risk prediction models. Standard metrics calculated from retrospective data are only related to model utility under certain assumptions. When predictions are delivered repeatedly throughout time, the relationship between standard metrics and utility is further complicated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T16:26:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.