Regularized regression outperforms trees for predicting cognitive function in the Health and Retirement Study

IF 4.9
Kyle Masato Ishikawa , Deborah Taira , Joseph Keaweʻaimoku Kaholokula , Matthew Uechi , James Davis , Eunjung Lim
{"title":"Regularized regression outperforms trees for predicting cognitive function in the Health and Retirement Study","authors":"Kyle Masato Ishikawa ,&nbsp;Deborah Taira ,&nbsp;Joseph Keaweʻaimoku Kaholokula ,&nbsp;Matthew Uechi ,&nbsp;James Davis ,&nbsp;Eunjung Lim","doi":"10.1016/j.mlwa.2025.100694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Generalized linear models have been favored in healthcare research due to their interpretability. In contrast, tree-based models, such as random forest or boosted trees, are often preferred in machine learning (ML) and commercial settings due to their strong predictive performance. However, for clinical applications, model interpretability remains essential for actionable results and patient understanding. This study used ML to detect cognitive decline for the purpose of timely screening and uncovering associations with psychosocial determinants. All models were interpreted to enhance transparency and understanding of their predictions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data from the 2018 to 2020 Health and Retirement Study was used to create three linear regression models and three tree-based models. Ten percent of the sample was withheld for estimating performance, and model tuning used five-fold cross validation with two repeats. Survey frequency weights were applied during tuning, training, and final evaluation. Model performance was evaluated using RMSE and R<sup>2</sup> and interpretability was assessed via coefficients, variable importance, and decision trees.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The elastic net model had the best performance (RMSE = 3.520, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.435), followed by standard linear regression, boosted trees, random forest, multivariate adaptive regression splines, and lastly, decision trees. Across all models, baseline cognitive function and frequency of computer use were the most influential predictors.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Elastic net regression outperformed tree-based models, suggesting that cognitive outcomes may be best modeled with additive linear relationships. Its ability to remove correlated and weak predictors contributed to its balance of interpretability and predictive performance for this particular dataset.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74093,"journal":{"name":"Machine learning with applications","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100694"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Machine learning with applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666827025000775","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Generalized linear models have been favored in healthcare research due to their interpretability. In contrast, tree-based models, such as random forest or boosted trees, are often preferred in machine learning (ML) and commercial settings due to their strong predictive performance. However, for clinical applications, model interpretability remains essential for actionable results and patient understanding. This study used ML to detect cognitive decline for the purpose of timely screening and uncovering associations with psychosocial determinants. All models were interpreted to enhance transparency and understanding of their predictions.

Methods

Data from the 2018 to 2020 Health and Retirement Study was used to create three linear regression models and three tree-based models. Ten percent of the sample was withheld for estimating performance, and model tuning used five-fold cross validation with two repeats. Survey frequency weights were applied during tuning, training, and final evaluation. Model performance was evaluated using RMSE and R2 and interpretability was assessed via coefficients, variable importance, and decision trees.

Results

The elastic net model had the best performance (RMSE = 3.520, R2 = 0.435), followed by standard linear regression, boosted trees, random forest, multivariate adaptive regression splines, and lastly, decision trees. Across all models, baseline cognitive function and frequency of computer use were the most influential predictors.

Conclusion

Elastic net regression outperformed tree-based models, suggesting that cognitive outcomes may be best modeled with additive linear relationships. Its ability to remove correlated and weak predictors contributed to its balance of interpretability and predictive performance for this particular dataset.
在健康和退休研究中,正则化回归优于树预测认知功能
广义线性模型因其可解释性而在医疗保健研究中受到青睐。相比之下,基于树的模型,如随机森林或增强树,由于其强大的预测性能,通常在机器学习(ML)和商业环境中更受青睐。然而,对于临床应用,模型的可解释性对于可操作的结果和患者的理解仍然是必不可少的。本研究使用ML检测认知能力下降,以便及时筛查和揭示与社会心理决定因素的关联。所有模型都进行了解释,以提高其预测的透明度和理解。方法利用2018 - 2020年健康与退休研究数据,建立3个线性回归模型和3个基于树的模型。10%的样本被保留用于估计性能,模型调整使用两次重复的五倍交叉验证。在调整、训练和最终评估期间应用调查频率权重。使用RMSE和R2评估模型性能,并通过系数、变量重要性和决策树评估可解释性。结果弹性网络模型的拟合效果最佳(RMSE = 3.520, R2 = 0.435),其次是标准线性回归、增强树、随机森林、多元自适应样条回归,最后是决策树。在所有模型中,基线认知功能和使用电脑的频率是最具影响力的预测因素。结论弹性网络回归优于基于树的模型,表明认知结果可能最好的模型是加性线性关系。它去除相关和弱预测因子的能力有助于平衡可解释性和预测性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Machine learning with applications
Machine learning with applications Management Science and Operations Research, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science Applications
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
98 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信