Volume 7, Issue 3 (9-2019)
Jorjani Biomed J 2019, 7(3): 11-23 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saadati M, Bagheri A. Comparison of Survival Forests in Analyzing First Birth Interval. Jorjani Biomed J 2019; 7 (3) :11-23
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-652-en.html
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-652-en.html
1- Associate professor of National Population Studies & Comprehensive Management Institute, Tehran, Iran.
2- Associate professor of National Population Studies & Comprehensive Management Institute ,abagheri_000@yahoo.com
2- Associate professor of National Population Studies & Comprehensive Management Institute ,
Abstract: (4632 Views)
Background and objectives: Application of statistical machine learning methods such as ensemble based approaches in survival analysis has been received considerable interest over the past decades in time-to-event data sets. One of these practical methods is survival forests which have been developed in a variety of contexts due to their high precision, non-parametric and non-linear nature. This article aims to evaluate the performance of survival forests by comparing them with Cox-proportional hazards (CPH) model in studying first birth interval (FBI).
Methods: A cross sectional study in 2017 was conducted by the stratified random sampling and a structured questionnaire to gather the information of 610, 15-49-year-old married women in Tehran. Considering some influential covariates on FBI, random survival forest (RSF) and conditional inference forest (CIF) were constructed by bootstrap sampling method (1000 trees) using R-language packages. Then, the best model is used to identify important predictors of FBI by variable importance (VIMP) and minimal depth measures.
Results: According to prediction accuracy results by out-of-bag (OOB) C-index and integrated Brier score (IBS), RSF outperforms CPH and CIF in analyzing FBI (C-index of 0.754 for RSF vs 0.688 for CIF and 0.524 for CPH and IBS of 0.076 for RSF vs 0.086 for CIF and 0.107 for CPH). Woman’s age was the most important predictor on FBI.
Conclusions: Applying suitable method in analyzing FBI assures the results which be used for making policies to overcome decrement in total fertility rate.
Methods: A cross sectional study in 2017 was conducted by the stratified random sampling and a structured questionnaire to gather the information of 610, 15-49-year-old married women in Tehran. Considering some influential covariates on FBI, random survival forest (RSF) and conditional inference forest (CIF) were constructed by bootstrap sampling method (1000 trees) using R-language packages. Then, the best model is used to identify important predictors of FBI by variable importance (VIMP) and minimal depth measures.
Results: According to prediction accuracy results by out-of-bag (OOB) C-index and integrated Brier score (IBS), RSF outperforms CPH and CIF in analyzing FBI (C-index of 0.754 for RSF vs 0.688 for CIF and 0.524 for CPH and IBS of 0.076 for RSF vs 0.086 for CIF and 0.107 for CPH). Woman’s age was the most important predictor on FBI.
Conclusions: Applying suitable method in analyzing FBI assures the results which be used for making policies to overcome decrement in total fertility rate.
Keywords: Survival Analysis, Machine Learning, Cox-proportional hazards model, First Birth Intervals.
Type of Article: Original article |
Subject:
Bio-statistics
Received: 2019/06/25 | Accepted: 2019/08/20 | Published: 2019/09/1
Received: 2019/06/25 | Accepted: 2019/08/20 | Published: 2019/09/1
References
2. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006. [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
3. Elashoff R, Li N. Joint modeling of longitudinal and time-to-event data: CRC Press; 2016. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4. David CR. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1972;34(2):187-220. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5. Gordon L, Olshen RA. Tree-structured survival analysis. Cancer treatment reports. 1985;69(10):1065-9. [Google Scholar]
6. Hothorn T, Bühlmann P, Dudoit S, Molinaro A, Van Der Laan MJ. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics. 2005;7(3):355-73. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7. Zhang H, Singer BH. Recursive partitioning and applications: Springer Science & Business Media; 2010. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Bou-Hamad I, Larocque D, Ben-Ameur H. A review of survival trees. Statistics Surveys. 2011;5:44-71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9. Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB. Random survival forests for R. R news. 2007;7(2):25-31. [Google Scholar]
10. Ishwaran H, Lu M. Random survival forests. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. 2008:1-13. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11. Breiman L. Random forests. Machine learning. 2001;45(1):5-32. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. LeBlanc M, Crowley J. Relative risk trees for censored survival data. Biometrics. 1992;June 1:411-25. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13. Dietrich S, Floegel A, Troll M, Kühn T, Rathmann W, Peters A, et al. Random Survival Forest in practice: a method for modelling complex metabolomics data in time to event analysis. International journal of epidemiology. 2016;45(5):1406-20. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14. Nasejje JB, Mwambi H, Dheda K, Lesosky M. A comparison of the conditional inference survival forest model to random survival forests based on a simulation study as well as on two applications with time-to-event data. BMC medical research methodology. 2017;17(1):115-42. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15. Nasejje JB, Mwambi H. Application of random survival forests in understanding the determinants of under-five child mortality in Uganda in the presence of covariates that satisfy the proportional and non-proportional hazards assumption. BMC research notes. 2017;10(1):459-77. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16. Adham D, Abbasgholizadeh N, Abazari M. Prognostic factors for survival in patients with gastric cancer using a random survival forest. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2017;18(1):129-34. [Google Scholar]
17. Miao F, Cai Y-P, Zhang Y-T, Li C-Y, editors. Is random survival forest an alternative to Cox proportional model on predicting cardiovascular disease? 6TH European conference of the international federation for medical and biological engineering; 2015: Springer. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18. Yosefian I, Mosa Farkhani E, Baneshi MR. Application of random forest survival models to increase generalizability of decision trees: a case study in acute myocardial infarction. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine. 2015:1-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19. Wang H, Li G. A Selective Review on Random Survival Forests for High Dimensional Data. Quantitative bio-science. 2017;36(2):85. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20. Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Chen X, Minn AJ. Random survival forests for high‐dimensional data. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal. 2011;4(1):115-32. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21. Abdolahi A. Effects of socio-economic rationality dimensions on childbearing behavior in Tehran. National Population Studies & Comprehensive Management Institute,; 2017. [Google Scholar]
22. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical statistics. 2006;15(3):651-74. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23. Krętowska M, editor Random forest of dipolar trees for survival prediction. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing; 2006: Springer. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24. Hothorn T, Lausen B, Benner A, Radespiel‐Tröger M. Bagging survival trees. Statistics in medicine. 2004;23(1):77-91. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25. Mogensen UB, Ishwaran H, Gerds TA. Evaluating random forests for survival analysis using prediction error curves. Journal of statistical software. 2012;50(11):1-23. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26. Gerds TA, Schumacher M. Consistent estimation of the expected Brier score in general survival models with right‐censored event times. Biometrical Journal. 2006;48(6):1029-40. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27. Graf E, Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Statistics in medicine. 1999;18(17‐18):2529-45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2529::AID-SIM274>3.0.CO;2-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28. Ehrlinger J. ggRandomForests: Exploring random forest survival. arXiv preprint arXiv:161208974. 2016. [Google Scholar]
29. Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Gorodeski EZ, Minn AJ, Lauer MS. High-dimensional variable selection for survival data. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2010;105(489):205-17. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30. Weathers B. Comparision of Survival Curves Between Cox Proportional Hazards, Random Forests, and Conditional Inference Forests in Survival Analysis. 2017:1-35. [Google Scholar]
31. Hsich E, Gorodeski EZ, Blackstone EH, Ishwaran H, Lauer MS. Identifying important risk factors for survival in patient with systolic heart failure using random survival forests. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2011;4(1):39-45. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32. Das A, Abdel-Aty M, Pande A. Using conditional inference forests to identify the factors affecting crash severity on arterial corridors. Journal of safety research. 2009;40(4):317-27. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
