Plug-and-play use of tree-based methods: consequences for clinical prediction modeling

In healthcare, statistical models can be used to predict a patient's risk of having or developing certain medical conditions. These predictions can be used for diagnosis, treatment planning, or informing patients. While there are many ways to build these models, a method that uses decision trees (and collections of these trees like random forest and XGBoost) has become increasingly popular. In our work, we used simulations and real patient data, to illustrate how these tree-based models learn from data. We show that these models inherently learn associations that are often biologically unrealistic, even when a lot of data are available. For example, when a predictive variable (e.g., body mass index) increases, we would expect smooth, gradual changes in risk. Instead, tree-based models tend to make sudden, unrealistic jumps or unexpected drops in their predictions. To discuss why this is relevant, we examined a case study in radiotherapy, where doctors use models to predict treatment side effects, based on variables such as the planned radiation dose. Here, the behavior of tree-based models sometimes leads to predictions where a tiny increase in radiation dose would either suddenly decrease the risk of side effects (which is not biologically plausible) or cause a dramatic increase in risk. Such biologically implausible predictions could result in a lack of trust from clinicians and potentially lead to suboptimal treatment decisions. While tree-based models are powerful methods, we argue that researchers should be aware of how these models learn and carefully evaluate whether this is acceptable for each specific clinical application. We also illustrate some promising solutions, such as forcing the models to incorporate existing medical knowledge, for example, by requiring that higher radiation doses must result in higher risks of side effects. Our work helps researchers understand the limitations and potential of these increasingly popular tree-based prediction methods and support their responsible use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Published
2025-05-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111834
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Plug-and-play use of tree-based methods: consequences for clinical prediction modeling

Lotta Meijerink, Artuur Leeuwenberg, Ewoud Schuit, Karel G.M. Moons
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Machine Learning in Healthcare
2.48
article

Plug-and-play use of tree-based methods: consequences for clinical prediction modeling

Lotta Meijerink, Artuur Leeuwenberg, Ewoud Schuit, Karel G.M. Moons
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In healthcare, statistical models can be used to predict a patient's risk of having or developing certain medical conditions. These predictions can be used for diagnosis, treatment planning, or informing patients. While there are many ways to build these models, a method that uses decision trees (and collections of these trees like random forest and XGBoost) has become increasingly popular. In our work, we used simulations and real patient data, to illustrate how these tree-based models learn from data. We show that these models inherently learn associations that are often biologically unrealistic, even when a lot of data are available. For example, when a predictive variable (e.g., body mass index) increases, we would expect smooth, gradual changes in risk. Instead, tree-based models tend to make sudden, unrealistic jumps or unexpected drops in their predictions. To discuss why this is relevant, we examined a case study in radiotherapy, where doctors use models to predict treatment side effects, based on variables such as the planned radiation dose. Here, the behavior of tree-based models sometimes leads to predictions where a tiny increase in radiation dose would either suddenly decrease the risk of side effects (which is not biologically plausible) or cause a dramatic increase in risk. Such biologically implausible predictions could result in a lack of trust from clinicians and potentially lead to suboptimal treatment decisions. While tree-based models are powerful methods, we argue that researchers should be aware of how these models learn and carefully evaluate whether this is acceptable for each specific clinical application. We also illustrate some promising solutions, such as forcing the models to incorporate existing medical knowledge, for example, by requiring that higher radiation doses must result in higher risks of side effects. Our work helps researchers understand the limitations and potential of these increasingly popular tree-based prediction methods and support their responsible use.

Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 184
Utrecht University (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Machine Learning in Healthcare
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.