Vol. 23 No. Special Issue 3 (2024): Mapana - Journal of Sciences
Research Articles

Comparison of Traditional Cox Proportional Hazard Model with Machine Learning Models for Survival Analysis in Predicting Risk of Death due to Heart Failure

PDF
  • Anuska Mukherjee,
  • Hemlata Joshi
Anuska Mukherjee
Christ (Deemed to be University)
Hemlata Joshi
Christ (Deemed to be University)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12723/mjs.sp3.3

Published 2024-11-06

Keywords

  • Heart Failure,
  • Survival Analysis,
  • Cox Proportional Hazard Model,
  • Random Survival Forest Model,
  • Gradient Boosted Model,
  • Survival Support Vector Machine
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2024

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

 Risk of death due to heart failure can depend on different biological or anatomical details of the patients. In this paper we used a dataset containing medical records of 299 patients who were monitored over a certain period. Though Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) Model is the most conventional approach while analyzing survival data, machine learning (ML) models are also being used recently. The problem with these ML methods is that they do not take ‘censoring’ into account. To incorporate censoring, especially right censoring, here in this article we have used Random Survival Forest Model, Gradient Boosted Model and Survival Support Vector Machine to predict the risk of death due to heart failure and compared their performances with traditional CPH model by Harrell’s Concordance index and time dependent AUC.  At the end of the study, it is seen that traditional CPH model performs better than rest of the ML techniques.

PDF

References

  1. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life‐tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187-202.
  2. Ahmad, T., Munir, A., Bhatti, S. H., Aftab, M., & Raza, M. A. (2017). Survival analysis of heart failure patients: A case study. PloS one, 12(7), e0181001.
  3. Zahid, F. M., Ramzan, S., Faisal, S., & Hussain, I. (2019). Gender based survival prediction models for heart failure patients: A case study in Pakistan. PloS one, 14(2), e0210602.
  4. Chicco, D., & Jurman, G. (2020). Machine learning can predict survival of patients with heart failure from serum creatinine and ejection fraction alone. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 20(1), 1-16.
  5. Maini, E., Venkateswarlu, B., Maini, B., & Marwaha, D. (2021). Machine learning–based heart disease prediction system for Indian population: An exploratory study done in South India. medical journal armed forces india, 77(3), 302-311.
  6. Ishwaran, H., Kogalur, U. B., Blackstone, E. H., & Lauer, M. S. (2008). Random survival forests. 841-860
  7. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine learning, 45, 5-32.
  8. Shivaswamy, P. K., Chu, W., & Jansche, M. (2007). A support vector approach to censored targets. In Seventh IEEE international conference on data mining, 655-660.
  9. Van Belle, V., Pelckmans, K., Suykens, J. A., & Van Huffel, S. (2007). Support vector machines for survival analysis. In Proceedings of the third international conference on computational intelligence in medicine and healthcare, 1-8.
  10. Evers, L., & Messow, C. M. (2008). Sparse kernel methods for high-dimensional survival data. Bioinformatics, 24(14), 1632-1638.
  11. Van Belle, V., Pelckmans, K., Suykens, J. A., & Van Huffel, S. (2008). Survival SVM: a practical scalable algorithm. In ESANN, 89-94.
  12. Van Belle, V., Pelckmans, K., Van Huffel, S., & Suykens, J. A. (2011). Support vector methods for survival analysis: a comparison between ranking and regression approaches. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 53(2), 107-118.
  13. Harrell, F. E., Califf, R. M., Pryor, D. B., Lee, K. L., & Rosati, R. A. (1982). Evaluating the yield of medical tests. Jama, 247(18), 2543-2546.