Background

Fluoroquinolones are associated with central (CNS) and peripheral (PNS) nervous system symptoms, and predicting the risk of these outcomes may have important clinical implications. Both LASSO and random forest are appealing modeling methods, yet it is not clear which method performs better for clinical risk prediction.

Purpose

To compare models developed using LASSO vs. random forest for predicting neurological dysfunction among fluoroquinolone users.

Methods

We developed and validated risk prediction models using claims data from a commercially insured population. The study cohort included adults dispensed an oral fluoroquinolone, and outcomes were CNS and PNS dysfunction. Model predictors included demographic variables, comorbidities and medications known to be associated with neurological symptoms, and several healthcare utilization predictors. We assessed the accuracy and calibration of these models using measures including AUC, calibration curves, and Brier scores.

Results

The underlying cohort contained 16 533 (1.18%) individuals with CNS dysfunction and 46 995 (3.34%) individuals with PNS dysfunction during 120 days of follow-up. For CNS dysfunction, LASSO had an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.82), while random forest had an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.81). For PNS dysfunction, LASSO had an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.76) vs. an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.74) for random forest. Both LASSO models had better calibration, with Brier scores 0.17 (LASSO) vs. 0.20 (random forest) for CNS and 0.20 (LASSO) vs. 0.25 (random forest) for PNS.

Conclusions

LASSO outperformed random forest in predicting CNS and PNS dysfunction among fluoroquinolone users, and should be considered for modeling when the cohort is modest in size, when the number of model predictors is modest, and when predictors are primarily binary.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.