Learning Interpretable Point-Based Clinical Risk Scores via Direct Optimization
Authors: Ying Cui, Albert M Li, Vivek Charu, Yeon-Mi Hwang, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Lu Tian
Abstract
Many clinical risk scores are deployed as additive rules with nonnegative integer points assigned to relevant binary predictive features. These integer weights not only make the score easier to use in practice but also promote sparsity in the resulting prediction model. Such risk scores are often derived by first fitting a regression model and then rounding the estimated coefficients to the nearest integer after appropriate scaling. This approach is computationally fast but does not guarantee optimality of the resulting score. Alternatively, one may search over all possible integer weights to directly optimize a value function by posing the problem as an integer programming task. However, the associated computational burden can be substantial, especially when the value function is nonconcave or even discontinuous. In this paper, we develop new machine learning algorithms that employ a flexible greedy optimization strategy to learn such additive scoring directly under explicit and sensible optimality objectives. We apply the proposed method to a large electronic health record (EHR) cohort in Epic Cosmos to construct an integer-weighted comorbidity score for measuring the risk of post-discharge mortality. We also conduct a simulation study to examine the finite-sample operating characteristics.
Risk scores are an interpretable and actionable class of machine learning models with applications in medicine, insurance, and risk management. Unlike most computational methods, risk scores are designed to be computed by a human by attributing points to a data sample based on a limited set of criteria. The most common approaches for generating risk scores use linear regressions to estimate the effect of selected variables. We propose a simple and effective approach towards building compact and predictive risk scores. We provide an algorithm based on gradient boosting that is capable of modeling nonlinear effects, along with a C++ implementation with Python and R bindings. Through extensive empirical evaluation on twelve tabular datasets spanning regression, classification, and time-to-event tasks, we show that our method achieves competitive predictive performance while producing substantially more compact scores than regression-based alternatives, with 60% fewer rules for classification tasks and 16% fewer rules for time-to-event tasks on average, compared to AutoScore.
Risk scoring systems are widely used in high-stakes domains to assist decision-making. However, existing approaches often focus on optimizing predictive accuracy or likelihood-based criteria, which may not align with the main goal of maximizing utility. In this paper, we propose a novel risk scoring system that directly optimizes net benefit over a range of decision thresholds. The model is formulated as a sparse integer linear programming problem which enables the construction of a transparent scoring system with integer coefficients, and hence, facilitates interpretation and practical application. We also establish fundamental relationships among net benefit, discrimination, and calibration. Our analysis proves that optimizing net benefit also guarantees conventional performance measures. We evaluated our method on multiple public datasets as well as on a large-scale credit risk dataset. This computational study demonstrated that our interpretable method can effectively achieve high net benefit while maintaining competitive discrimination and calibration performance.
Traditional comorbidity scores (e.g., Charlson and Elixhauser) are widely used for risk adjustment and patient stratification, but they have two key limitations: (i) they are largely mortality-centric and do not align well with other clinical outcomes, and (ii) their linear, rule-based structure cannot capture nonlinear, outcome-specific risk relationships. We propose a Machine-Learned Comorbidity Index (MLCI) that maps diagnosis codes to a single scalar by maximizing the normalized Hilbert-Schmidt Independence Criterion (nHSIC) between the learned score and multiple clinical outcomes. MLCI captures nonlinear risk-outcome dependence and is supported by a theory that characterizes when a unified, informative admission-level ordering can be achieved across outcomes. Empirical results on multiple benchmark electronic health record (EHR) datasets show that MLCI outperforms strong baselines across multiple evaluation metrics.