首页> 外文期刊>Psychological assessment >Scoring Algorithms for a Computer-Based Cognitive Screening Tool: An Illustrative Example of Overfitting Machine Learning Approaches and the Impact on Estimates of Classification Accuracy
【24h】

Scoring Algorithms for a Computer-Based Cognitive Screening Tool: An Illustrative Example of Overfitting Machine Learning Approaches and the Impact on Estimates of Classification Accuracy

机译:基于计算机的认知筛选工具的评分算法:过度装备机器学习方法的说明性示例以及对分类精度估计的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Computerized cognitive screening tools, such as the self-administered Computerized Assessment of Memory Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI), require little training and ensure standardized administration and could be an ideal test for primary care settings. We conducted a secondary analysis of a data set including 887 older adults (M age = 72.7 years, SD = 7.1 years; 32.1% male; M years education = 13.4, SD = 2.7 years) with CAMCI scores and independent diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A study by the CAMCI developers used a portion of this data set with a machine learning decision tree model and suggested that the CAMCI had high classification accuracy for MCI (sensitivity = 0.86, specificity = 0.94). We found similar support for accuracy (sensitivity = 0.94, specificity = 0.94) by overfitting a decision tree model, but we found evidence of lower accuracy in a cross-validation sample (sensitivity = 0.62, specificity = 0.66). A logistic regression model, however, discriminated modestly in both training (sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 0.80) and cross-validation data sets (sensitivity = 0.69, specificity = 0.74). Evidence for strong accuracy when overfitting a decision tree model and substantially reduced accuracy in cross-validation samples was replicated across 500 bootstrapped samples. In contrast, the evidence for accuracy of the logistic regression model was similar in the training and cross-validation samples. The logistic regression model produced accuracy estimates consistent with other published CAMCI studies, suggesting evidence for classification accuracy of the CAMCI for MCI is likely modest. This case study illustrates the general need for cross-validation and careful evaluation of the generalizability of machine learning models.
机译:计算机化的认知筛选工具,如自我管理的计算机化评估记忆认知障碍(CAMCI),需要很少的培训并确保标准化管理,并且可能是初级保健设置的理想测试。我们对数据集进行了次要分析,包括887名年龄较大的成年人(M年龄= 72.7岁,SD = 7.1岁; 32.1%男性; M年教育= 13.4,SD = 2.7岁),具有CAMCI分数和独立诊断轻度认知障碍(MCI)。 Camci开发人员的一项研究使用了具有机器学习决策树模型的一部分该数据集,并建议CAMCI对MCI的分类精度高(Sensitive = 0.86,特异性= 0.94)。我们发现通过过度选择决策树模型,我们发现了类似的准确性(灵敏度= 0.94,特异性= 0.94),但我们发现在交叉验证样本中较低的准确性(灵敏度= 0.62,特异性= 0.66)。然而,逻辑回归模型在训练中歧视(Sensitivity = 0.72,特异性= 0.80)和交叉验证数据集(Sensitive = 0.69,特异性= 0.74)。在过度拟合决策树模型时具有强度精度的证据,并在500个引导样本中复制了交叉验证样本中的精度大幅降低的精度。相比之下,逻辑回归模型的准确性证据在训练和交叉验证样本中类似。 Logistic回归模型产生了与其他公开的摄像头研究一致的准确性估计,表明MCI的CAMCI的分类准确性的证据可能是谦虚的。本案例研究说明了交叉验证的一般需要,并仔细评估机器学习模型的易用性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号