A Comparative Evaluation of Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards, and Random Survival Forests for Neonatal Mortality Prediction

Neonatal mortality remains a critical public health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where limited healthcare resources and fragmented follow-up systems hinder timely interventions. Accurate prediction of neonatal death is essential for risk stratification, resource allocation, and improving survival outcomes. While traditional survival analysis methods like the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) model are widely used, they face limitations in handling non-linear relationships, high-dimensional data, and violations of proportional hazards assumptions. Random Survival Forests (RSF), a machine learning approach, offers potential advantages but lacks sufficient comparative evaluation in neonatal mortality prediction, especially within LMIC contexts. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the performance of Kaplan-Meier, Cox PH, and RSF models in predicting neonatal mortality using a synthetic dataset reflecting perinatal epidemiology in Kenya. The research addresses a significant and direct methodological comparisons across these models in neonatal populations, particularly under real-world conditions involving censoring, missing data, and non-proportional hazards. We assessed discrimination (C-index, time-dependent AUC), calibration (Integrated Brier Score, CRPS), and clinical interpretability. The dataset included 2,000 neonates with 17 covariates including but not limited to gestational age, birth weight, maternal health, and socioeconomic status. Results showed that RSF outperformed both Kaplan-Meier and Cox PH in discrimination (C-index: 0.875 vs. 0.868) and maintained strong calibration, particularly at 28 days. Variable importance measures identified gestational age, birth weight, and maternal health score as top predictors. SHAP values enhanced interpretability of RSF outputs. The Cox model provided clinically intuitive hazard ratios but was less flexible in capturing interactions. The study concluded that RSF offers superior predictive accuracy for neonatal mortality and should be integrated into risk prediction tools, especially in data-rich settings. Policy makers should support adoption of advanced analytics in perinatal care systems, while maintaining traditional models for inferential clarity. Combining both paradigms can optimize neonatal survival strategies.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Published
2025-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cbb.20251302.11
Primary Topic
Global Maternal and Child Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Evaluation of Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards, and Random Survival Forests for Neonatal Mortality Prediction

Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Global Maternal and Child Health
article

A Comparative Evaluation of Kaplan-Meier, Cox Proportional Hazards, and Random Survival Forests for Neonatal Mortality Prediction

article en

Abstract

Neonatal mortality remains a critical public health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where limited healthcare resources and fragmented follow-up systems hinder timely interventions. Accurate prediction of neonatal death is essential for risk stratification, resource allocation, and improving survival outcomes. While traditional survival analysis methods like the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) model are widely used, they face limitations in handling non-linear relationships, high-dimensional data, and violations of proportional hazards assumptions. Random Survival Forests (RSF), a machine learning approach, offers potential advantages but lacks sufficient comparative evaluation in neonatal mortality prediction, especially within LMIC contexts. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the performance of Kaplan-Meier, Cox PH, and RSF models in predicting neonatal mortality using a synthetic dataset reflecting perinatal epidemiology in Kenya. The research addresses a significant and direct methodological comparisons across these models in neonatal populations, particularly under real-world conditions involving censoring, missing data, and non-proportional hazards. We assessed discrimination (C-index, time-dependent AUC), calibration (Integrated Brier Score, CRPS), and clinical interpretability. The dataset included 2,000 neonates with 17 covariates including but not limited to gestational age, birth weight, maternal health, and socioeconomic status. Results showed that RSF outperformed both Kaplan-Meier and Cox PH in discrimination (C-index: 0.875 vs. 0.868) and maintained strong calibration, particularly at 28 days. Variable importance measures identified gestational age, birth weight, and maternal health score as top predictors. SHAP values enhanced interpretability of RSF outputs. The Cox model provided clinically intuitive hazard ratios but was less flexible in capturing interactions. The study concluded that RSF offers superior predictive accuracy for neonatal mortality and should be integrated into risk prediction tools, especially in data-rich settings. Policy makers should support adoption of advanced analytics in perinatal care systems, while maintaining traditional models for inferential clarity. Combining both paradigms can optimize neonatal survival strategies.

Computational Biology and BioinformaticsVol. 13(2)
University of Science and Technology of China (CN), Moi University (KE), Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (KE), Chuka University (KE), Centre for Health Solutions (KE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Global Maternal and Child Health
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.