MARATTO

article · BMC Infectious Diseases

Machine learning prediction of tuberculosis mortality: a comparative analysis of random survival forest and cox regression models

Abstract

Survival analysis is widely used to predict time-to-event outcomes, with the Cox regression model being a standard approach. However, machine learning methods such as Random Survival Forests (RSF) can capture complex, non-linear relationships that traditional models may miss. This study compared the predictive performance of RSF and Cox regression in modelling tuberculosis (TB) mortality. We conducted a retrospective study of TB patients treated at the East London Central Clinic in South Africa. Patient data included demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables. Model performance was evaluated using five metrics (C-index, Brier Score, Integrated Brier Score, Integrated Absolute Error, and Integrated Squared Error) along with time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Variable importance was assessed to identify key predictors. The RSF model consistently outperformed the Cox model across all evaluation metrics. RSF achieved a higher integrated AUC (0.815 vs. 0.652) and lower prediction error (IBS = 0.235 vs. 0.261). Important predictors of mortality included age, sex, weight, and disease class, with RSF capturing their time-dependent effects more accurately. The cumulative case/dynamic control ROC curve showed the strongest predictive accuracy at 120 days (AUC = 0.856). RSF demonstrated superior predictive accuracy compared with Cox regression in modelling TB mortality. Its ability to account for non-linear and time-dependent effects makes it a potentially useful tool for improving risk prediction and guiding patient management in TB care. Not applicable.

Research topics

  • Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis
  • Machine Learning in Healthcare

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1186/s12879-026-13109-9

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.