5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Increasing transparency in machine learning through bootstrap simulation and shapely additive explanations

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , * ,
      PLOS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Machine learning methods are widely used within the medical field. However, the reliability and efficacy of these models is difficult to assess, making it difficult for researchers to identify which machine-learning model to apply to their dataset. We assessed whether variance calculations of model metrics (e.g., AUROC, Sensitivity, Specificity) through bootstrap simulation and SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) could increase model transparency and improve model selection. Data from the England National Health Services Heart Disease Prediction Cohort was used. After comparison of model metrics for XGBoost, Random Forest, Artificial Neural Network, and Adaptive Boosting, XGBoost was used as the machine-learning model of choice in this study. Boost-strap simulation (N = 10,000) was used to empirically derive the distribution of model metrics and covariate Gain statistics. SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to provide explanations to machine-learning output and simulation to evaluate the variance of model accuracy metrics. For the XGBoost modeling method, we observed (through 10,000 completed simulations) that the AUROC ranged from 0.771 to 0.947, a difference of 0.176, the balanced accuracy ranged from 0.688 to 0.894, a 0.205 difference, the sensitivity ranged from 0.632 to 0.939, a 0.307 difference, and the specificity ranged from 0.595 to 0.944, a 0.394 difference. Among 10,000 simulations completed, we observed that the gain for Angina ranged from 0.225 to 0.456, a difference of 0.231, for Cholesterol ranged from 0.148 to 0.326, a difference of 0.178, for maximum heart rate (MaxHR) ranged from 0.081 to 0.200, a range of 0.119, and for Age ranged from 0.059 to 0.157, difference of 0.098. Use of simulations to empirically evaluate the variability of model metrics and explanatory algorithms to observe if covariates match the literature are necessary for increased transparency, reliability, and utility of machine learning methods. These variance statistics, combined with model accuracy statistics can help researchers identify the best model for a given dataset.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence.

          Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling has become increasingly popular in phylogenetics as a method for both estimating the maximum likelihood topology and for assessing nodal confidence. Despite the growing use of posterior probabilities, the relationship between the Bayesian measure of confidence and the most commonly used confidence measure in phylogenetics, the nonparametric bootstrap proportion, is poorly understood. We used computer simulation to investigate the behavior of three phylogenetic confidence methods: Bayesian posterior probabilities calculated via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling (BMCMC-PP), maximum likelihood bootstrap proportion (ML-BP), and maximum parsimony bootstrap proportion (MP-BP). We simulated the evolution of DNA sequence on 17-taxon topologies under 18 evolutionary scenarios and examined the performance of these methods in assigning confidence to correct monophyletic and incorrect monophyletic groups, and we examined the effects of increasing character number on support value. BMCMC-PP and ML-BP were often strongly correlated with one another but could provide substantially different estimates of support on short internodes. In contrast, BMCMC-PP correlated poorly with MP-BP across most of the simulation conditions that we examined. For a given threshold value, more correct monophyletic groups were supported by BMCMC-PP than by either ML-BP or MP-BP. When threshold values were chosen that fixed the rate of accepting incorrect monophyletic relationship as true at 5%, all three methods recovered most of the correct relationships on the simulated topologies, although BMCMC-PP and ML-BP performed better than MP-BP. BMCMC-PP was usually a less biased predictor of phylogenetic accuracy than either bootstrapping method. BMCMC-PP provided high support values for correct topological bipartitions with fewer characters than was needed for nonparametric bootstrap.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A simulation study of reduced tree-search effort in bootstrap resampling analysis.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluation of bootstrap methods for estimating uncertainty of parameters in nonlinear mixed-effects models: a simulation study in population pharmacokinetics.

              Bootstrap methods are used in many disciplines to estimate the uncertainty of parameters, including multi-level or linear mixed-effects models. Residual-based bootstrap methods which resample both random effects and residuals are an alternative approach to case bootstrap, which resamples the individuals. Most PKPD applications use the case bootstrap, for which software is available. In this study, we evaluated the performance of three bootstrap methods (case bootstrap, nonparametric residual bootstrap and parametric bootstrap) by a simulation study and compared them to that of an asymptotic method (Asym) in estimating uncertainty of parameters in nonlinear mixed-effects models (NLMEM) with heteroscedastic error. This simulation was conducted using as an example of the PK model for aflibercept, an anti-angiogenic drug. As expected, we found that the bootstrap methods provided better estimates of uncertainty for parameters in NLMEM with high nonlinearity and having balanced designs compared to the Asym, as implemented in MONOLIX. Overall, the parametric bootstrap performed better than the case bootstrap as the true model and variance distribution were used. However, the case bootstrap is faster and simpler as it makes no assumptions on the model and preserves both between subject and residual variability in one resampling step. The performance of the nonparametric residual bootstrap was found to be limited when applying to NLMEM due to its failure to reflate the variance before resampling in unbalanced designs where the Asym and the parametric bootstrap performed well and better than case bootstrap even with stratification.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                23 February 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 2
                : e0281922
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Statistics and Data Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of MD Education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America
                Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro: Universita degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4970-4968
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3663-004X
                Article
                PONE-D-22-32361
                10.1371/journal.pone.0281922
                9949629
                36821544
                8a0dc63e-088f-4773-8e4c-60c0b85c9fcb
                © 2023 Huang, Huang

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 23 November 2022
                : 5 February 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 15
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Cardiovascular Diseases
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Cardiovascular Medicine
                Cardiovascular Diseases
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Simulation and Modeling
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Vascular Medicine
                Angina
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Artificial Intelligence
                Machine Learning
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Cardiology
                Heart Rate
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Forecasting
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Forecasting
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Test Statistics
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Test Statistics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Biochemistry
                Lipids
                Cholesterol
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article