↓ Skip to main content

MediBoost: a Patient Stratification Tool for Interpretable Decision Making in the Era of Precision Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
MediBoost: a Patient Stratification Tool for Interpretable Decision Making in the Era of Precision Medicine
Published in
Scientific Reports, November 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep37854
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Machine learning algorithms that are both interpretable and accurate are essential in applications such as medicine where errors can have a dire consequence. Unfortunately, there is currently a tradeoff between accuracy and interpretability among state-of-the-art methods. Decision trees are interpretable and are therefore used extensively throughout medicine for stratifying patients. Current decision tree algorithms, however, are consistently outperformed in accuracy by other, less-interpretable machine learning models, such as ensemble methods. We present MediBoost, a novel framework for constructing decision trees that retain interpretability while having accuracy similar to ensemble methods, and compare MediBoost's performance to that of conventional decision trees and ensemble methods on 13 medical classification problems. MediBoost significantly outperformed current decision tree algorithms in 11 out of 13 problems, giving accuracy comparable to ensemble methods. The resulting trees are of the same type as decision trees used throughout clinical practice but have the advantage of improved accuracy. Our algorithm thus gives the best of both worlds: it grows a single, highly interpretable tree that has the high accuracy of ensemble methods.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 31 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Engineering 13 10%
Physics and Astronomy 3 2%
Design 3 2%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 43 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,432,887
of 33,973,571 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#49,204
of 181,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,374
of 452,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,108
of 3,748 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,973,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 181,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,748 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.