Back

Comparison of logistic regression with regularized machine learning methods for the prediction of tuberculosis disease in people living with HIV: cross-sectional hospital-based study in Kisumu County, Kenya.

Orwa, J.; Oduor, P.; Okelloh, D.; Gethi, D.; Agaya, J.; Okumu, A.; Wandiga, S.

2023-08-23 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.08.17.23294212 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is a major public health concern, particularly among people living with the Human immunodeficiency Virus (PLWH). Accurate prediction of TB disease in this population is crucial for early diagnosis and effective treatment. Logistic regression and regularized machine learning methods have been used to predict TB, but their comparative performance in HIV patients remains unclear. The study aims to compare the predictive performance of logistic regression with that of regularized machine learning methods for TB disease in HIV patients. MethodsRetrospective analysis of data from HIV patients diagnosed with TB in three hospitals in Kisumu County (JOOTRH, Kisumu sub-county hospital, Lumumba health center) between [dates]. Logistic regression, Lasso, Ridge, Elastic net regression were used to develop predictive models for TB disease. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). ResultsOf the 927 PLWH included in the study, 107 (12.6%) were diagnosed with TB. Being in WHO disease stage III/IV (aOR: 7.13; 95%CI: 3.86-13.33) and having a cough in the last 4 weeks (aOR: 2.34;95%CI: 1.43-3.89) were significant associated with the TB. Logistic regression achieved accuracy of 0.868, and AUC-ROC of 0.744. Elastic net regression also showed good predictive performance with accuracy, and AUC-ROC values of 0.874 and 0.762, respectively. ConclusionsOur results suggest that logistic regression, Lasso, Ridge regression, and Elastic net can all be effective methods for predicting TB disease in HIV patients. These findings may have important implications for the development of accurate and reliable models for TB prediction in HIV patients.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.0%
2
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
3
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
10.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.9%
6
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
7
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
8
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
9
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
11
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
14
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
16
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
17
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
19
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
20
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
26
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
28
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
29
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%