mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AutoScore-Imbalance: An interpretable machine learning tool for development of clinical scores with rare events data

arXiv 2107.06039 ↗First posted 13 Jul 2021cs.LGcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Medical decision-making impacts both individual and public health. Clinical scores are commonly used among a wide variety of decision-making models for determining the degree of disease deterioration at the bedside. AutoScore was proposed as a useful clinical score generator based on machine learning and a generalized linear model. Its current framework, however, still leaves room for improvement when addressing unbalanced data of rare events. Methods: Using machine intelligence approaches, we developed AutoScore-Imbalance, which comprises three components: training dataset optimization, sample weight optimization, and adjusted AutoScore. All scoring models were evaluated on the basis of their area under the curve (AUC) in the receiver operating characteristic analysis and balanced accuracy (i.e., mean value of sensitivity and specificity). By utilizing a publicly accessible dataset from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, we assessed the proposed model and baseline approaches in the prediction of inpatient mortality. Results: AutoScore-Imbalance outperformed baselines in terms of AUC and balanced accuracy. The nine-variable AutoScore-Imbalance sub-model achieved the highest AUC of 0.786 (0.732-0.839) while the eleven-variable original AutoScore obtained an AUC of 0.723 (0.663-0.783), and the logistic regression with 21 variables obtained an AUC of 0.743 (0.685-0.800). The AutoScore-Imbalance sub-model (using down-sampling algorithm) yielded an AUC of 0. 0.771 (0.718-0.823) with only five variables, demonstrating a good balance between performance and variable sparsity. Conclusions: The AutoScore-Imbalance tool has the potential to be applied to highly unbalanced datasets to gain further insight into rare medical events and to facilitate real-world clinical decision-making.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2021.

Builds on

9 of 71 references.

References · 9

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 699
  4. 2017Generative Adversarial Networks: An Overviewcited by 590
  5. 2019PruneTrain: Fast Neural Network Training by Dynamic Sparse Model Reconfigurationcited by 41
  6. 2019From GAN to WGANcited by 34
  7. 2018A Solvable High-Dimensional Model of GANcited by 13
  8. 2021AutoScore-Survival: Developing interpretable machine learning-based time-to-event scores with right-censored survival datacited by 7
  9. 2020On the Importance of Diversity in Re-Sampling for Imbalanced Data and Rare Events in Mortality Risk Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

7 papers.