ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
Loss function influence on hyperparameter optimization for observational healthcare prediction models.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPrediction models are increasingly used in healthcare for risk stratification and personalized care. Many models are developed using machine learning, which requires tuning hyperparameters to maximize performance based on a chosen loss function metric. In healthcare, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) is commonly used for this purpose, but it may not always be the most appropriate choice for every clinical application. We empirically characterize whether the choice of loss function metric in hyperparameter optimization leads to systematic differences in model behavior across several clinical prediction tasks using real-world healthcare data.
methodsWe utilized fifteen different loss function metrics to guide hyperparameter selection across three clinical prediction tasks and four machine learning algorithms. We then compared how loss function metric choice affected selected hyperparameters, overall performance, and individual predicted probabilities.
resultsWe observed that certain hyperparameters tended to have similar optimal values across different loss function metrics, although this pattern differed by algorithm. The best-performing models, evaluated using AUROC, were often not the models with hyperparameters optimized using AUROC. While models performed similarly at a population level, based on discrimination and calibration. The choice of the loss function metric had significant impact on the individual predicted risk for a patient. DISCUSSION: The predictive multiplicity observed can have significant impact on the patient level, while not observed in the population level model evaluation.
conclusionPredictive multiplicity can have a serious impact on patient treatment decisions but is not yet well understood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.