Applying machine learning and predictive modeling to retention and viral suppression in South African HIV treatment cohorts | Scientific Reports –

In total, 445,636 patients were included in the retention model and 363,977 in the VL model. Nearly one-third (30%) of patients were male, with a median age of 39 years (IQR 31–49 years) at the time of visit. In the retention dataset, patients had a median of 18 (IQR 10–25) visits since entering care and had been in care for a median of 31 (IQR 15–43) months. The vast majority (91%) of patients visited a single facility during the period under analysis.

Predictor variables and baselines

We generated 75 potential predictor variables per visit and 42 predictor variables per VL test. The retention and VL suppression models were built using the AdaBoost and random forest15 binary classification algorithms, respectively, from the scikit-learn16 open source project and tested against unseen data to evaluate predictive performance.

For the retention model, the test set consisted of 1,399,145 unseen visits randomly selected from across 2016–2018. The test set’s baseline prevalence of missed visits was 10.5% (n = 146,881 visits), consistent with the LTFU prevalence observed in both the full data set and the training set. This observed baseline was comparable with meta-studies of LTFU at 1 year in South Africa 2011–201517. For the VL suppression model, the dataset was split into training and testing sets, with the test set consisting of 30% (n = 211,315) of the original unseen tests randomly selected from across the study period. In the VL test set, there were 21,679 unsuppressed (> 400 copies/mL) viral load results for a baseline prevalence of unsuppressed VL results of 10.3%.

Retention model results

We selected two approaches to the training sets: first, the sample was balanced in terms of the output classes (50% missed and 50% not missed visits); and second, with an unbalanced sample—60% not missed and 40% missed visits). The AdaBoost classifier was trained with a 50:50 balanced sample of the modeling set, which resulted in 343,078 of each visit classification (missed or not missed visits) in the training set. Using the test set, the retention model correctly classified 926,814 of the test set (~ 1.4 m visits) correctly, yielding an accuracy of 66.2% (Table 2A). In total, 89,140 patients missed their scheduled visit and were correctly identified out of a possible 146,881 available known missed visits, yielding a sensitivity of 60.6% for all positives. Conversely, 837,674 visits were correctly identified as not missed out of a total of 1,252,264 visits observed as not missed for a specificity of 67% and a negative predictive value of 94%.

Table 2 Late visit model metrics based on (A) balanced and (B) unbalanced training sets.

Next, the AdaBoost classifier was trained with an unbalanced 60:40 sample of the modeling set. This translated into 343,180 missed visits and 514,770 visits attended on time in the training set. The retention model trained on the unbalanced sample correctly classified 1,100,341 of the test set (~ 1.4 m), for an accuracy of 78.6% (Table 2B). However, only 59,739 of the missed visits were correctly identified, yielding a sensitivity of 40.6% for all positives and a false negative rate of 59.3%. The model’s negative predictive value remained high at 92%, further suggesting that attended scheduled visits are easier to identify than missed visits.

The two models demonstrated the potential trade-off in accuracy, precision and sensitivity that can be manipulated in the training of the models18. However, the predictive power or utility of the model to separate between classes—represented by the AUC metric—remained consistent across models. The two ROC curves are depicted in Fig. 2A,B with the same AUC and identical shapes. Whilst this difference of sampling approach demonstrates the manipulation of the metrics, it is important to note that this rebalancing and re-sampling of the training set can also introduce under or misrepresentation of sub classes, with each data set uniquely sensitive to imbalance problems particularly at smaller sample sizes19,20.

Figure 2
figure 2

ROC Curve of (A) 50:50 balanced late visit classifier, (B) 60:40 unbalanced late visit classifier and (C) 50:50 balanced unsuppressed VL classifier.

Suppressed VL model results

For the suppressed VL model, the final training set was down sampled to 101,976 tests, such that it had a 50:50 balanced sample. The model correctly classified 153,183 VL results out of the test set of 211,315 correctly, yielding an accuracy of 72.5% (Table 3). In total, 14,225 unsuppressed viral load tests were correctly predicted out of a possible 21,679 unsuppressed test results, yielding a sensitivity of 65.6%. The model’s negative predictive value was very high at 95%, again suggesting that suppressed VL results (i.e., lower risk) are simpler to recognize. Overall, the model had an AUC of 0.758 (Table 3, Fig. 2C).

Table 3 Unsuppressed VL model metrics based on balanced (50:50) training sets.

Predictor importance

The original set of over 75 input predictor variables for the retention model (and 42 for the unsuppressed VL model) were reduced to a more practical number through feature selection using a Random Forest algorithm on all inputs. Random Forest permutes the inputs into trees of different groups of predictors, and the change in predictive power (as measured by AUC) of the model for each permutation was calculated. This process prioritises groups of predictor variables that together improve predictive power and deprioritises those that contribute little or no improvement to AUC. Random Forest was able to rank the relative feature importance of the total input set for each model. Figure 3A,B illustrate their relative importance in helping correctly and repeatedly classify a particular observation as a correct or incorrect prediction of the target outcome. The predictor variables with higher importance help the algorithm distinguish between its classifications more often and more correctly than those with lower importance. For example, in the retention model (Fig. 3A), gender represented in the Boolean variable ‘Is Male’ has some correlation with the missed visit target outcome and measurably more than the eliminated predictor variables that had zero correlation. However, it is clear that the algorithm relied on correlations in the patients’ prior behavior (frequency of lateness, time on treatment, etc.) to segment the risk of outcome, and together, these described more of the difference than gender alone.

Figure 3
figure 3

(A) Final input features included in late visit model ranked by importance. (B) Final input features included in unsuppressed VL model ranked by importance.

Our results indicated that prior patient behavior and treatment history were extremely important in predicting both visit attendance and viral load results in these datasets and that traditional demographic predictor variables were less useful than behavioral indicators. These more powerful predictor variables can also be used to further stratify populations by risk and segment more granularly for targeted interventions and differentiated care.

During feature selection we investigated overfitting to particular features through comparative tests of features permutation importances with the goal of identifying any overfitted but erroneous highly correlated features in the training set that weren’t a reflected phenomenon in the test set (Supplementary Figure 1). We also performed correlation checks on the candidate input features. Rather than assuming that multicollinearity in the input variables was necessarily leading to information loss, during the feature selection phase, we tried several combinations of feature groupings to test the relationship of certain groups against the prediction metrics. The matrix of these feature correlation checks is depicted in Supplementary Figure 2.

We also report the model performance metrics considering various subsets of the ranked input features to determine whether reducing the model to the 10 most important features impacted on performance metrics. As noted in Supplementary table 1, overall model accuracy varied by only 5% comparing a model including only the 5 most important features (62%) with a model including all 75 features (67%). Difference in AUC between these two models was less than 0.04 (Supplementary Figure 3).

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.