Accessibility settings

Published on in Vol 5 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/95727, first published .
Nurse checks sleeping baby while mother watches; rural African village setting.

Predicting Measles Vaccination Defaulting in Uganda and Kenya: Comparative Evaluation of Custom Soft Voting and TabNet Stacked Ensemble Architectures

Predicting Measles Vaccination Defaulting in Uganda and Kenya: Comparative Evaluation of Custom Soft Voting and TabNet Stacked Ensemble Architectures

1Department of Computer Science, School of Computing and Information Science, Kyambogo University, P.O Box 1, Kyambogo, Kampala, Uganda

2Department of Information Systems, College of Computing and Information Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Kampala, Uganda

Corresponding Author:

Bartha Alexandra Nantongo, MSc


Background: Measles is a major cause of death among infants despite free routine immunization (RI) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Vaccination defaulting contributes to measles outbreak occurrences. Conventional immunization defaulter identification methods are expensive to implement, prone to data falsification, reactive, and overestimate uptake. Several machine learning studies leveraged the use of child and maternal characteristics as predictors of immunization defaulting, overlooking community, demographic, and socioeconomic factors. Similarly, there is limited research regarding the use of interpretable deep learning and advanced ensemble methods to improve model performance in predicting RI defaulters and establishing significant predictors at the national level in the LMIC context, like Uganda.

Objective: This study predicts infants at a risk of defaulting on measles vaccination in Uganda and Kenya using advanced ensemble learning architectures.

Methods: The study benchmarked classical and deep learning models using Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) datasets (2016-2022) with child, maternal, community, social-economic, and demographic characteristics as predictors. The robust modeling pipeline began with feature selection according to the literature and the expert domain. It was followed by vaccination eligibility, missing value handling, and feature elimination using the phi-k correlation framework. To mitigate class imbalance, synthetic minority over-sampling technique for nominal continuous features was used in a training pipeline after the RobustScaler. Nine baseline classifiers, including Tabular Network (TabNet), multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), gradient boosting (GB), adaptive-boosting (AB), among others, underwent stratified k-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter optimization via grid search. Custom soft voting was evaluated alongside TabNet stack architecture for superior ensemble prediction. Models were evaluated for accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Model explainability was decoded using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), while Streamlit and SQLite formed the tool architecture.

Results: The proposed TabNet+GB+RF custom soft voting achieved significant, nonrandom performance over tuned base models with an F1-score of 0.7111, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8847 for Kenya. Conversely, for Uganda, the TabNet hybrid ensemble (GB+RF+ AB→TabNet) was the best with AUC of 0.8862 and F1-score of 0.6756, which was statistically insignificant. SHAP identified child’s age and vitamin A1 as universal key predictors in both countries; others varied. In Kenya, time to water source, respondents’ education, district lived previously, and current district were the most influential global features, respectively. In Uganda, Polio inactive, Pentavalent3, current district, and respondents’ education were the most influential factors to defaulting, respectively.

Conclusions: The proposed advanced ensemble learning models improved the classification of measles vaccine defaulters compared to individual models. The study recommends distinct country-tailored strategies. In Kenya, outreaches are recommended to areas with low literacy, distant water sources, and mobile populations. Conversely, in Uganda, the study recommends reminders to avoid missing preceding vaccines and outreaches to high-default districts.

JMIR AI 2026;5:e95727

doi:10.2196/95727

Keywords



Background

Childhood mortality rates have declined globally. However, the risk of a child dying before the age of one year is highest in Africa at 51 per 1000 live births compared to 8 per 1000 births in the European region [1]. Currently, the probability of a child dying between birth and 5 years in Uganda is 53 per 1000 live births [2], while Kenya reported 41 deaths per 1000 live births [3]. Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) account for 29% of deaths among children aged 1‐59 months and an estimated 3 million deaths every year, mainly in Africa and Asia [4].

Measles vaccination marks a great milestone as it is the last administered among the basic antigens [3] (see Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1). Measles is an acute viral VPD whose only reservoir is humans [5]. It is transmitted through the air or direct contact with an infected person [5]. With an incubation period of 7‐21 days [5], the World Health Organization indicates that up to 3 million measles cases are recorded annually [6]. Measles is one of the main causes of death among infants in the prevaccine period due to complications from the respiratory tract (pneumonia), the central nervous system (meningitis, encephalitis, meningoencephalitis, and encephalomyelitis), and the gastrointestinal tract (diarrhea) [6]. Despite free routine immunization (RI), many infants are zero-dose or drop out of the immunization schedule [7]. This situation was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, which impaired RI services in African countries, in that only 3 countries met the target of 95% first measles vaccination coverage in 2020 [5]. From January to March 2022, about 17,500 cases of measles were recorded in Africa, while 20 African countries reported measles outbreaks in the first quarter of 2022 [5].

Uganda experienced measles outbreaks in 76 districts in 2018 [8], January 2020 in Nakaseke [5], and February-June 2023 in Bundibugyo [9], among others. These outbreaks reflect the existence of communities with partially vaccinated or zero-dose infants whose herd immunity is not high enough to stall disease transmission [10]. Similarly, in Kenya, 2% of children aged 12‐23 months received no vaccinations [3].

Real-time monitoring of RI enables identification of underserved communities; zero-dose infants are likely to drop out of the immunization schedule [11]. Conventional defaulter identification methods, like resource-based approach (RBA) [12], rapid coverage monitoring (RCM) [13], administrative estimates [11], and surveys, are expensive to implement regularly [11,14], propagate data falsification [15], overestimate uptake [11,12,14], and are not proactive.

Several studies [16-18] have used individual models to predict RI defaulters, predominantly leveraging child and maternal characteristics as predictors, yet overlooking community, socioeconomic, and demographic factors. Some never applied resampling techniques like cross-validation to reduce overfitting or data balancing during training of an imbalanced dataset distribution. In addition, the studies lacked the application of interpretable deep learning methods, significant feature quantifying, and recommending remedial intervention strategies at a national level in Uganda and Kenya concerning measles vaccination defaulting. We claim that using advanced ensemble learning to predict immunization defaulters may reduce the risk of outbreaks and infant mortality.

Nantongo et al established that immunization defaulting increases as the child’s age increases and worsens with measles [19]. The study also indicated the reception of preceding vaccines among predictors for measles in Uganda. However, the model performance for measles was the worst among the four antigens. Nantongo et al [19] did not explore an interpretable deep neural network approach and an advanced ensemble technique; yet, interpretability was key in public health. Neither did it establish if the same predictors would influence measles defaulting in another geographical area other than Uganda, for the models’ generalizability. Accordingly, this study leverages literature to (1) increase predictors’ diversity, (2) explore a comparative study between Uganda and Kenya, (3) experiment with custom soft voting and stacking architectures, (4) experiment performance using interpretable deep learning methods, specifically TabNet, and (5) evaluate performance using a confusion matrix, Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), in addition to other metrics to improve interpretability, to guide public health officers in both countries to mitigate measles defaulting.

Machine Learning Models for Tabular Data

Traditional machine learning models for tabular data, like tree-based ensembles such as random forest (RF) and gradient boosting (GB), among others, are considered the top-performing models [20]. However, deep learning models like multilayer perceptron (MLP) and Tabular Network (TabNet) have been presented to perform better. MLP is a general-purpose “black-box” neural network characterized by multiple layers where every neuron in one layer is connected to every neuron in the next layer, and is applicable to many data types, but traditionally structured for tabular data due to its simple linear flow.

TabNet is a high-performance interpretable deep neural network for tabular data with feature selection capabilities [20]. Unlike traditional neural networks that process features all at once, TabNet has a sequential attention mechanism that learns to select a subset of the most relevant features to reason from at every decision step, providing local and global interpretability [20] (Figure 1). The TabNet architecture consists of an encoder that consists of a feature transformer, an attentive transformer, and feature masking, and a decoder for self-supervised learning [20]. TabNet has illustrated superior performance over traditional machine learning models [20,21], hence its application in this study.

‎
Figure 1. Customized TabNet’s sparse feature selection.

Related Literature

In the medical field, a comparative performance assessment of a multilevel ensemble learning model to detect diabetes by [22] achieved a maximum accuracy of 88.3% compared to individual models experimented with, and the study suggested the use of synthetic minority over-sampling technique (SMOTE) on imbalanced classification datasets for future work [22]. Similarly, a study [23] concluded that the ensemble learning method was more suitable for handling the classification problems in the bioinformatics domain since it gave better accuracy with a lower root-mean square error.

Correspondingly, another study [24] experimented with stacking linear models, support vector regression (SVR) with a linear kernel, and SVR with a Gaussian kernel. Their results revealed that stack ensemble learning effectively predicted vaccination uptake using web search queries and clinical data for Denmark with a 4.7 root-mean-squared error. In addition, a study forecasting monkeypox transmission in different continents proposed stacking ensemble learning of adaptive boosting (AB) regression, GB regression, RF regression, ordinary least square regression, least absolute shrinkage selection operator regression, and ridge regression. Experimental results revealed that the stacking ensemble learning outperformed other ML approaches [25].

The study by Nantongo et al [19] used demographic, socioeconomic, maternal, community, and child characteristics as predictors. It also experimented with a model with cross-validation and balanced distribution, indicating RF as the best model among the 9 at 84% accuracy in predicting measles vaccination defaulting [19]. As mentioned in the preceding section, there is limited research regarding comparing Uganda and Kenya with reference to measles vaccination defaulting, use of interpretable ensemble deep learning methods to improve model performance with predictor diversity, quantifying significant measles vaccine default predictors with a clear explanation of feature influence on the model outcome, and remedial intervention strategies for policymakers in Uganda and Kenya contexts at a national level. Accordingly, this study aims to predict measles vaccine defaulters in Uganda and Kenya using advanced ensemble learning methods with interpretable influential predictors and context-specific remedial intervention strategies.

Machine Learning Ensembles

Ensemble methods achieve high accuracy [26]; yet, they require little preprocessing [27]. These methods merge base models’ individual predictions to output a single one using several techniques [28]. The techniques include voting classifiers, bagging and pasting, RFs, boosting, and stacking ensembles. Voting and stacking are nongenerative, while boosting and bagging are generative [28]. The voting classifier employs diverse algorithms trained in parallel and uses either hard or soft voting [27]. Another approach is using the same training algorithm for every prediction, but training them on different random subsets of the training set. Sampling may be done with replacement (bagging) or without (pasting). The RF is an ensemble of decision tree classifiers that uses bagging. Boosting, on the other hand, combines several weak learners into a stronger one trained sequentially, each trying to correct its predecessor [27,29,30].

Stacking is another ensemble method that trains a model to perform prediction aggregation from different base models as inputs for the final predictor (meta learner) [27]. This study experimented with TabNet stack and custom soft voting architectures to predict measles vaccination defaulters in Uganda and Kenya, interpreting influential predictors and suggesting country-tailored remedial intervention strategies for mitigating measles defaulting.


Data Collection and Sampling

Study experiments were conducted using the data collected nationally from the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2022 for Kenya and 2016 for Uganda. DHS data collection uses standardized questionnaires and modules. The study was a retrospective cohort study of infants (living) that were born between 2020‐2022 and 2013‐2016 for Kenya and Uganda, respectively. Although there is a 6-year difference in 2016 Uganda DHS (UDHS) and 2022 Kenya DHS (KDHS), currently the 10% of the 2022 UDHS dataset available [31] for public use may not provide representative estimates at the national level. Experiments under the same conditions were run separately on the country-specific datasets. The study considered immunization uptake of the measles first vaccination administered at 9 months, which marks a great milestone of completion of the basic childhood RI schedule for infants under one year, as indicated in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1.

The 7th KDHS was conducted by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) in 2022 [3], while the 6th UDHS was conducted by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) in collaboration with the Ministry of Health from June 15 to December 18, 2016 [32]. KDHS 2022 and UDHS 2016 were the most recent national representative datasets at the time of this study’s experiments. The DHS provides a comprehensive overview of population, maternal, and child health issues, and the data are accessible on request to all stakeholders for policy formulation, planning, and measuring progress [32]. The KDHS 2022 collected new indicators not collected in earlier KDHS surveys, like early childhood development, health expenditures, and information on chronic diseases [3], but it maintained the standard indicators for childhood immunization, enabling the current comparative study. Among the many survey objectives, DHS obtains data on many key aspects, like maternal and child health, including immunization coverage among children [32]. The sampling frame used for the 2016 UDHS was the frame of the Uganda National Population and Housing Census (NPHC), conducted in 2014. The census frame was a complete list of all census enumeration areas (EAs) or stratas created for the 2014 NPHC [32]. In Uganda, an EA is a geographic area that covers an average of 130 households [32]. The sample design for the 2022 KDHS provided estimates at the national level, for both urban and rural areas in 47 counties [3]. For purposes of comparative analysis in this study, a county in Kenya corresponds to a district in Uganda. Figure 2 illustrates the architecture of the proposed ensemble.

‎
Figure 2. Pipeline for proposed advanced ensemble learning. DHS: Demographic and Health Survey.

Dataset and Preprocessing

Feature Selection

This study selected features predicting vaccine uptake according to the literature [3,7,19,32-37]. Twenty features were selected as predictors of measles immunization defaulting in Uganda and Kenya. Phi-k correlation coefficient and significance were used because they provide a unified mathematically consistent metric capable of capturing both linear and nonlinear dependencies across categorical, ordinal, and interval variables without requiring separate statistical tests or manual encoding [38].

To reduce noise, the study used a significance matrix of each feature, multicollinear “twin” resolution, and phi-k correlation coefficient with the binary target (defaulting-H9) as criteria. For example, if 2 features had Qk>0.85 (Figure 3), it was assumed to be redundant, leading to dropping one Qk<0.05 or if or near zero towards the target variable, it was flagged as noise. Similarly, the significance threshold of z score<3.0 was used to discard statistically irrelevant predictors, hence retaining 11 features (Table 1).

‎
Figure 3. Phi-k correlation coefficient heap map. SDISTRICT: Sample district.
Table 1. Measles vaccination predictors and their status.
FeatureTarget significance z-scoreGlobal Phi-KStatus
Ultimate area unit5.690.998Drop (twin of sample district)
Cluster altitude in meters3.990.993Keep
Years lived in place of residence1.770.992Drop (not significant)
Time to get to water source5.820.516Keep
Ethnicity0.660.984Drop (not significant)
Education in single years5.300.705Keep
Age of household head2.560.626Drop (not significant)
Wealth index factor score combined3.830.996Keep
Wealth index factor score for urban/rural0.550.631Drop (not significant)
Date of first birth (CMCa)1.540.987Drop (not significant)
Age of respondent at 1st birth4.760.840Keep
Current age of child23.520.446Keep
Received Polio 364.340.995Drop (twin of received Pentavalent 2)
Received vitamin A1 (most recent)44.470.991Keep
Received Pentavalent 267.490.997Drop (twin of received Pentavalent 3)
Received Pentavalent 368.460.997Keep
Received Pneumococcal 357.730.871Drop (twin of Received Polio 3)
Received Polio inactive49.160.657Keep
Sample district7.870.663Keep
District lived in previous to current residence6.440.997Keep
H9—b—Target

aCMC: century month code.

bNot applicable.

Data Discretization

The data discretization technique transformed numerical data into categories for measles defaulters and vaccinated. That is, vaccination date on card, reported by the mother, and vaccination marked on card were categorized as immunized (negative), while no or do not know were categorized as defaulters (positive).

Handling Vaccine Eligibility and Missing Values

Out of 8928 infants in the UDHS dataset, only 6793 infants were eligible for measles vaccination, while in Kenya 6403 were eligible. DHS has standardized placeholders (default value imputation) for categorizing missing values. This was adopted by this study for both UDHS and KDHS to ensure structural consistency and preserve critical behavioral context that traditional statistical imputation, like mean or mode, may inherently destroy.

Data Normalization

Normalization, also called feature scaling, is an important step that gives superior model performance for datasets with varying scales [39]. Models benefit from rescaling all attributes to have the same scale [40]. It standardizes the feature values to mitigate model bias due to scale variations [41] and optimizes algorithms [40]. The study used RobustScaler to transform the data, Xscaled=(x-median)/IQR where x is the original value. RobustScaler uses IQR to preserve the original data variance by ignoring the distracting effects of extreme values and is therefore not affected by outliers, unlike min-max [39].

Data Distribution and Balancing

The distribution of measles defaulters was 26.3% (1685/6403) and 22.1% (1504/6793) for Kenya and Uganda, respectively. The datasets had class imbalance; therefore, the SMOTE nominal continuous (SMOTE-NC) was used to balance the training sets after the split of training from test sets to avoid data leakage.

Rationale for Base Models’ Selection

This study considered diversity in base model selection that would capture different patterns in the data to handle complex and nonlinear relationships [20]. Deep neural network models like TabNet and MLP were used. MLP is a general-purpose black box neural network model known to be good for structured data. TabNet is an interpretable model with a sequential and attention-based feature selection at every step. This interpretability is key in health-related research like this study. Similarly, tree-based ensemble methods like AdaBoost and RFs were selected due to their capacity to combine multiple weaker learners sequentially to create a robust and high-performing model [29,42]. Lastly, logistic regression (LR) is a simple yet powerful linear model that provides a clear, interpretable relationship between features, while SVM is a kernel-based model that works by finding the optimal hyperplane [43].

Model Training

Experiments were done after dataset balancing and with cross-validation. The stratified k-fold cross-validation (CV), that is, k=5 fold, was used since CV offers better performance and less biased estimates [44]. K-fold CV results are reiterated with the mean score of the values of the model [44].

Model Classification and Threshold Optimization

Base algorithms were first trained at a default at 0.5 threshold as baselines. Predictions were initially generated as continuous raw probability scores, representing the calculated risk of an infant defaulting on their measles vaccination. These continuous probabilities were mapped into hard binary classification (1=defaulter, 0=immunized). A data-driven optimization strategy was implemented rather than relying on standard default parameters. The decision boundary was optimized dynamically using precision_recall_curve to maximize the localized (F1-score) harmonic mean of precision and recall on the test set.

Model Evaluation

Evaluation establishes the level of excellence achieved by a proposed model [45]. This study employed metrics, including: accuracy, recall, precision, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and confusion matrix.

Accuracy=TP+TNTP+FP+FN+TN(1)
Recall=TPTP+FN(2)
Precision=TPTP+FP(3)
F1 Score=2×Precision×RecallPrecision+Recall(4)

Where TP is true positive, FP is false positive, TN is true negative, and FN is false negative.

Confusion Matrix

A confusion matrix is a two-dimensional table that is helpful in classification problems [43] to present counts of how often each category is classified or misclassified [40]. The confusion matrix was instrumental in this study, given the imbalanced distribution.

SHAP Analysis

SHAP is a game theory approach that explains the output of a model [21]. It calculates Shapley values to fairly distribute the “payout” among features towards the model’s prediction. It provides local and global interpretability, which is crucial for building trust, especially in health-related research like this study and debugging models. A high SHAP value indicates a high probability of defaulting the measles vaccine, while a low value indicates receiving.

Hyperparameter Tuning

The advanced ensemble models had different individual base models (Table 2) that were first trained and tuned separately.

Table 2. Summaries of hyperparameters for the models.
HyperparameterDescriptionGBaABbRFcLRdSVMeDTfMLPgTabNeth
n_estimatorsNumber of boosting rounds (trees)[50, 100, 200][50, 100, 200][50, 100, 200]—i————
learning_rate—[0.01, 0.1, 0.2][0.01, 0.1, 0.2]——————
max_depthMax tree depth,
-1 means no limit
[3,4,5] —[10, 20, None]——[5, 10, 20, None]——
Max_featuresNo. of features to split.— —[“:sqrt,” “log2”]—————
Min_samples_leafMinimum samples in leaf node——[1, 2, 4]——[1, 5, 10]——
CPenalty strength for misclassification———[0.01, 0.1, 1.0, 10.0, 100.0][0.1, 1.0, 10.0]———
penaltyControls type of regularization———[“l1,” “l2”] ————
kernelFunction to transform data————[“linear,” “rbf”]———
gammaInfluence range of support vectors————[“scale,” “auto”]———
criterionFunction to measure split quality—————[“gini,” “entropy”]]——
Hidden_layer_sizesTuple representing number of neurons in each hidden layer.——————[(100), (50, 50)], (100, 50, 25)]—
activationActivation function relu (rectified linear unit)——————[“tanh,” “relu”]—
alphaL2 regularization term coefficient added to loss function to penalize large weights and avoid overfitting——————[0.001, 0.0001]—
solverAdaptive moment estimation (adam) stochastic gradient-based optimizer——————[“adam,” “sgd”]—
n_dWidth of the decision prediction layer———————randint(8, 32)
n_aWidth of the attention embedding layer———————randint(8, 32)
n_stepsNumber of decision steps———————randint(3, 10)
gammaRelaxation parameter for attention———————[1.3, 1.5, 2.0]
Lambda_sparseSparsity regularization———————[0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001
Default value—[100, 0.1, 3][50, 1.0][500,20, 1, 1][1.0, l2][1.0, rbf, scale][None, 1, gini][100, “relu,” “adam,” 0.0001][8,8,3,1.3,0.001]

aGB: gradient boosting.

bAB: adaptive boosting.

cRF: random forest.

dLR: logistic regression.

eSVM: support vector machine.

fDT: decision tree.

gMLP: multilayer perceptron.

hTabNet: Tabular Network.

iNot applicable.

Ethical Considerations

The DHS program granted the use of UDHS and KDHS datasets in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved procedures for DHS public use datasets (see ethical approvals in Multimedia Appendix 1). Human participant consent is not applicable in this study since secondary datasets were used (see ethical approvals in Multimedia Appendix 1).


Overview

Models experimented with TabNet, RF, MLP, LR, GB, decision trees (DT), Support vector machine (SVM), and AB among others.

In Table 3, the SD for all metrics was very low, with the highest (0.0246) being in the acceptable range. This revealed a low variability and consistent performance across the five folds; therefore, models may generalize well to unseen data. GB was the best performing model with an F1-score of 0.7034 for Kenya, closely followed by SVM (F1-score=0.7013). For Uganda, RF outperformed others (F1-score=0.6520), closely followed by GB (F1-score=0.6495). Similarly, GB and RF had the highest accuracy, precision, and AUROC for the respective countries.

Table 3. Experimental results for individual models with k=5.
Model and countryAccuracy, mean (SD)Precision, mean (SD)Recall, mean (SD)F1-score, mean (SD)AUROCa, mean (SD)
LRb
Kenya0.8074 (0.0060)0.6060 (0.0087)0.7668 (0.0179)0.6769 (0.0114)0.8393 (0.0098)
Uganda0.7534 (0.0058)0.4611 (0.0096)0.6748 (0.0209)0.5478 (0.0133)0.8156 (0.0068)
DTc
Kenya0.7528 (0.0057)0.5257 (0.0099)0.6309 (0.0235)0.5731 (0.0056)0.7136 (0.0049)
Uganda0.7730 (0.0112)0.4901 (0.0202)0.6270 (0.0289)0.5501 (0.0234)0.7207 (0.0172)
RFd
Kenya0.8231 (0.0051)0.6435 (0.0061)0.7341 (0.0220)0.6857 (0.0125)0.8634 (0.0058)
Uganda0.8356 (0.0073)0.6132 (0.0136)0.6961 (0.0268)0.6520 (0.0184)0.8706 (0.0098)
GBe
Kenya0.8284 (0.0086)0.6448 (0.0124)0.7739 (0.0243)0.7034 (0.0168)0.8715 (0.0063)
Uganda0.8310 (0.0070)0.6005 (0.0139)0.7074 (0.0221)0.6495 (0.0156)0.8741 (0.0101)
ABf
Kenya0.8262 (0.0072)0.6450 (0.0106)0.7549 (0.0222)0.6955 (0.0146)0.8660 (0.0065)
Uganda0.8176 (0.0079)0.5688 (0.0154)0.7320 (0.0212)0.6399 (0.0134)0.8668 (0.0093)
KNNg
Kenya0.8101 (0.0079)0.6265 (0.0150)0.6902 (0.0332)0.6564 (0.0177)0.8227 (0.0134)
Uganda0.7879 (0.0043)0.5169 (0.0076)0.6383 (0.0166)0.5712 (0.0105)0.8089 (0.0070)
NBh
Kenya0.7913 (0.0093)0.5880 (0.0152)0.6926 (0.0202)0.6359 (0.0164)0.8216 (0.0103)
Uganda0.5682 (0.0072)0.3181 (0.0046)0.8304 (0.0122)0.4600 (0.0058)0.7601 (0.0060)
SVMi
Kenya0.8288 (0.0081)0.6483 (0.0117)0.7638 (0.0220)0.7013 (0.0158)0.8495 (0.0102)
Uganda0.8175 (0.0038)0.5721 (0.0069)0.6968 (0.0149)0.6283 (0.0088)0.8381 (0.0072)
MLPj
Kenya0.8188 (0.0057)0.6277 (0.0090)0.7662 (0.0246)0.6899 (0.0122)0.8652 (0.0083)
Uganda0.8201 (0.0064)0.5770 (0.0141)0.7061 (0.0240)0.6347 (0.0116)0.8647 (0.0064)
TabNetk
Kenya0.8113 (0.0073)0.6164 (0.0108)0.7496 (0.0275)0.6763 (0.0149)0.8528 (0.0094)
Uganda0.8114 (0.0091)0.5573 (0.0175)0.7294 (0.0283)0.6313 (0.0136)0.8628 (0.0095)

aAUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

bLR: logistic regression.

cDT: decision tree.

dRF: random forest.

eGB: gradient boosting.

fAB: adaptive boosting.

gKNN: k-nearest neighbors

hNB: Naive Bayes

iSVM: support vector machine.

jMLP: multilayer perceptron.

kTabNet: Tabular Network.

Confusion Matrix in the Context of This Study

When comparing models, this study’s primary focus was to achieve a high TP (predict the highest number of defaulters), minimal FN, which represents the zero dose of the vaccination schedule, potential dropouts that act as reservoirs for VPD, and minimizing false alarms (see Table 4).

Table 5 illustrates that GB outperformed other models by predicting 79% (267/337) of all defaulters and 18% (169/944) false alarms for Kenya. For Uganda, NB had the highest predicted defaulters at 78% (236/301); however, it had a high 47% (493/1058) false alarms. On the other hand, AB at 71% (215/301) TP and 14% (150/1058) false alarms closely followed TabNet and GB. Figure 4 and Table 6 present the Uganda and Kenya hyperparameter tuning results.

Table 4. Confusion matrix in the study context.
Predicted negative (immunized)Predicted positive (defaulter)
Actual negative (immunized)True negative: correctly clearedFalse positive: false alarm
Actual positive (defaulter)False negative: missed defaulterTrue positive: identified defaulter
Table 5. Experimental confusion matrix for individual models.
RFaMLPbTabNetcABdGBeSVMfNBgKNNhLRiDTj
Kenya (total instances: 1281)
True positive253261262258267265235247258226
False negatives8476757970721029079111
True negative780778772787775787777784762743
False positives164166172157169157167160182196
Uganda (total instances: 1359)
True positive205199211215208202236186196189
False negatives961029086939965115105112
True negative942926901908929931565897833870
False positives116132157150129127493161225188

aRF: random forest.

bMLP: multilayer perceptron.

cTabNet: Tabular Network.

dAB: adaptive boosting.

eGB: gradient boosting.

fSVM: support vector machine.

gNB: naïve Bayes.

hKNN: k-nearest neighbor.

iLR: logistic regression.

jDT: decision tree.

‎
Figure 4. Hyperparameter summary for Uganda and Kenya.
Table 6. Grid search hyperparameter tuning results.
Model and countryAccuracyPrecisionRecallAUCaF1-score
tuned
F1-score
default parameters
Improvement
(F1-score)
LRb
Kenya0.79550.57930.81310.85510.67650.6769–0.0004
Uganda0.74320.45140.74090.81890.56100.54780.0132
DTc
Kenya0.82980.66210.72110.86080.69030.57310.1171
Uganda0.84400.64780.64780.83940.64780.55010.0977
RFd
Kenya0.83370.66150.75370.87890.70460.68570.0189
Uganda0.84690.64310.79440.88510.66770.65200.0157
GBe
Kenya0.83450.66320.75370.88310.70560.70340.0022
Uganda0.84180.62290.72430.88330.66970.64950.0202
ABf
Kenya0.81970.61830.82200.88290.70570.69550.0102
Uganda0.81750.56260.79070.87180.65750.63990.0176
KNNg
Kenya0.80250.61050.68840.84070.64710.6564–0.0093
Uganda0.82190.60810.55150.81490.57840.57120.0072
NBh
Kenya0.79940.59050.77450.83790.67010.63590.0342
Uganda0.70570.40160.67110.76080.50250.46000.0425
SVMi
Kenya0.81420.60550.84270.87530.70470.70130.0034
Uganda0.83520.62220.65120.84040.63640.62830.0081
MLPj
Kenya0.80720.59260.85460.87500.69990.68990.010
Uganda0.82560.58840.70760.85640.64250.63470.0078
TabNetk
Kenya0.83370.66490.74180.87040.70130.67630.0025
Uganda0.83660.62150.67110.86320.64540.63130.0141

aAUC: area under the curve.

bLR: logistic regression.

cDT: decision tree.

dRF: random forest.

eGB: gradient boosting.

fAB: adaptive boosting.

gKNN: k-nearest neighbor

hNB: naive Bayes

iSVM: support vector machine.

jMLP: multilayer perceptron.

kTabNet: Tabular Network.

An improvement in model performance is observed in 7/9 models across all metrics after hyperparameter tuning. For example, TabNet had an improved F1-score of 2.5% (Kenya) and 1.41% (Uganda), RF at 1.89% (Kenya) and 1.57% (Uganda); DT at 11.72% (Kenya) and 9.77% (Uganda), among others, while only KNN and LR for Kenya performed best at default parameters. However, we noticed the reduced FN (defaulters; Tables 7 and 8); there was a high number of FP (false alarms) that necessitated further model refinement.

Table 7. Confusion matrix for the tuned models: Uganda (N=1359).
LRaDTbRFcABdGBeKNNfNBgSVMhMLPiTabNetj
True positive223195209238218166202196213202
False Negatives78106926383135991058899
True Negative787952942873926951757939909935
False Positives271106116185132107301119149123

aLR: logistic regression.

bDT: decision tree.

cRF: random forest.

dAB: adaptive boosting.

eGB: gradient boosting.

fKNN: k-nearest neighbor.

gNB: naive Bayes.

hSVM: support vector machine.

iMLP: multilayer perceptron.

jTabNet: Tabular Network.

Table 8. Confusion matrix for the tuned models: Kenya (N=1281).
LRaDTbRFcABdGBeKNNfNBgSVMhMLPiTabNetj
True Positive274243254277254232261284288250
False Negatives639483608310576534987
True Negative745820814773815796763759746818
False Positives199124130171129148181185198126

aLR: logistic regression.

bDT: decision tree.

cRF: random forest.

dAB: adaptive boosting.

eGB: gradient boosting.

fKNN: k-nearest neighbor.

gNB: naive Bayes.

hSVM: support vector machine.

iMLP: multilayer perceptron.

jTabNet: Tabular Network.

Table 9 revealed that the advanced ensemble (custom soft voting and TabNet stacking) improved performance compared to the best-tuned base models. TabNet+ GB+RF→Soft voting outperformed all stacked ensembles with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8847 and F1-score of 0.7111 at an optimal threshold of 0.5125 for Kenya, while GB + RF+AB→TabNet was the best for Uganda with an AUC of 0.8867 and an F1-score of 0.6756 at an optimal threshold of 0.5163. Individual models seemed to have a higher accuracy; however, the confusion matrix revealed that the models were failing to identify measles vaccine defaulters (minority) but overwhelmingly predicting the vaccinated (majority class) despite the application of SMOTE-NC in training.

Table 9. Advanced ensemble learning model performance comparison.
Ensemble numberBase learnerMeta learnerCountryAccuracyPrecisionRecallAUCaF1-score
—bABc (Best base)—Kenya0.81970.61830.82200.88290.7057
—GBd (Best base)—Uganda0.84180.62290.72430.88330.6697
1TabNete +MLPfLRg
  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • 0.8009
  • 0.8447
  • 0.5823
  • 0.6562
  • 0.8605
  • 0.6279
  • 0.8787
  • 0.8580
  • 0.6946
  • 0.6418
2GB +RFh+ABTabNet
  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • 0.8189
  • 0.8403
  • 0.6224
  • 0.6141
  • 0.7923
  • 0.7508
  • 0.8730
  • 0.8862
  • 0.6971
  • 0.6756
3GB +RF+ABLR
  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • 0.8314
  • 0.8359
  • 0.6547
  • 0.6021
  • 0.7596
  • 0.7641
  • 0.8828
  • 0.8881
  • 0.7033
  • 0.6735
4TabNet +RFLR
  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • 0.8228
  • 0.8366
  • 0.6341
  • 0.6070
  • 0.7715
  • 0.7442
  • 0.8786
  • 0.8864
  • 0.6961
  • 0.6687
5TabNet +GB+RFSoft voting
  • Kenya
  • Uganda
  • 0.8376
  • 0.8418
  • 0.6684
  • 0.6280
  • 0.7596
  • 0.7010
  • 0.8847
  • 0.8847
  • 0.7111
  • 0.6625

aAUC: area under the curve.

bNot applicable.

cAB: adaptive boosting.

dGB: gradient boosting.

eTabNet: Tabular Network.

fMLP: multilayer perceptron.

gLR: logistic regression.

hRF: random forest.

Table 10 revealed that the proposed advanced ensembles GB + RF+AB→TabNet and TabNet + GB+RF→Soft voting with the highest F1-score correctly classified 3% for Uganda (8/301) and 1% for Kenya (2/337) more of the total TP that were previously misclassified by the best optimized base models, leading to a subtle improvement yet significant reduction in Type II errors (FNs). TabNet + GB+RF→Soft voting in Kenya presented the highest TN and the lowest TP. For Uganda, GB + RF+AB→TabNet had moderate FPs (false alarms). This was a trade-off since FPs are less harmful compared to failure to identify a TP. In the context of this public health study, it is the defaulters, TP and FN (unimmunized) that pose the risk of VPD outbreaks.

Table 10. Confusion matrix for advanced ensemble models.
TabNeta+ MLPb→LRcGBd + RFe+ABf→TabNetGB + RF+AB→LRTabNet + RF→LRTabNet + GB+RF→Custom soft voting
Kenya (1281 instances)
True Positive290267256260256
False Negatives4770817781
True Negative736782809794817
False Positives208162135150127
Uganda (1359 instances)
True Positive189226230224211
False Negatives11275717790
True Negative959916906913933
False Positives99142152145125

aTabNet: Tabular Network.

bMLP: multilayer perceptron.

cLR: logistic regression.

dGB: gradient boosting.

eRF: random forest.

fAB: adaptive boosting.

Figures 5 and 6 and Table 11 indicate that the current age of the child, vitamin A1, respondent’s education, time to water source, district lived previously, and current district were the most influential global features in Kenya, respectively. In Uganda, vitamin A1, current age of the child, Polio inactive, Pentavalent 3, current district, and respondent’s education were the most influential factors to defaulting, respectively.

The statistical validation performance comparison based on McNemar test between Kenya and Uganda in Table 12 revealed that, in Kenya, a significant marginal performance was gained by TabNet + GB+RF ->Soft Voting over the tuned best base (AB; ΔF1-score=0.0054; P=.007; χ21=7.224; Cohen g [effect size]=0.1716; CI for Δ F1-score spans zero −0.0156 to 0.0260). The absolute magnitude of improvement remains tight yet nonrandom pattern of corrected errors confirms the advanced ensemble’s structural advantage in Kenya. Conversely, in Uganda, the TabNet hybrid demonstrated that the algorithmic complexity does not universally guarantee statistical superiority. While GB + RF+AB→TabNet exhibited a slightly higher nominal improvement of Δ F1-score=0.0059, the 95% bootstrap CI again captures zero (−0.0113 to 0.0222). Crucially, the McNemar test registered no statistical significance (χ21=0.033; P=.86) with weak effect size (Cohen g) of 0.0333. It reveals that the differences in classification error between the best tuned base model (GB) and the TabNet hybrid may be stochastic. This also indicates that the additional computational overhead of the advanced ensemble architecture fails to provide a meaningful predictive advantage in this specific context.

‎
Figure 5. Global feature importance. SHAP: Shapley additive explanations.
‎
Figure 6. Feature impact on model output. SHAP: Shapley additive explanations.
Table 11. Ranked feature importance.
Country and featureMean SHAPa value
Kenya
Current age of child0.179472
Received vitamin A1 (most recent)0.074740
Education in single years0.042691
Time to get to water source0.033265
District lived in previous to current residence0.017289
Sample county0.015859
Wealth index factor score for urban/rural0.013037
Age of respondent at 1st birth0.011565
Cluster altitude in meters0.007374
Received polio inactive0.006813
Received Pentavalent 30.006167
Uganda
Received vitamin A1 (most recent)0.074347
Current age of child0.073706
Received polio inactive0.056320
Received Pentavalent 30.049364
Sample district0.031718
Education in single years0.030147
Time to get to water source0.021435
Cluster altitude in meters0.017715
Age of respondent at 1st birth0.016960
Wealth index factor score for urban/rural0.010812
District lived in previous to current residence0.009542

aSHAP: Shapley additive explanations.

Table 12. Statistical validation comparison.
CountryModeldelta F1- score (95% CI)Cohen g (effect size)McNemar chi-squareP valueSignificance
KenyaTuned base (AdaBoost) vs best (ensemble: TabNeta+GBb+RFc ->soft voting)0.0054
(-0.0156 to 0.0260)
0.17167.224 (1).007Significant
UgandaTuned Base (GB) versus best (ensemble: GB+RF+ABd ->TabNet)0.0059
(-0.0113 to 0.0222)
0.03330.033 (1).86Not significant

aTabNet: Tabular Network.

bGB: gradient boosting.

cRF: random forest.

dAB: adaptive boosting.


Principal Findings

Experimental results for individual standard models revealed that GB was the best with an F1-score of 0.7034, closely followed by SVM at 0.7013, AB at 0.6955 for Kenya. For Uganda, RF outperformed others at 0.6520, closely followed by GB at 0.6495. Similarly, GB and RF had the highest accuracy, precision, and AUROC for the respective countries. These results resonate with [19,34,46], who indicated that the tree-based ensembles like RF were the best performing models. In addition, just like [47], tree-based models outperformed deep learning methods. NB was worst at 0.4600 (Uganda) and DT 0.5731 (Kenya).

Similarly, an improved performance among individual models was realized after hyperparameter tuning at a customized threshold. For example, TabNet had an improved (see Table 6) F1-score of 0.025 (Kenya) and 0.0141 (Uganda); RF at 0.0189 (Kenya) and 0.0157 (Uganda); DT at 0.1172 (Kenya) and 0.0977 (Uganda), among others. On the contrary, KNN and LR for Kenya performed best at standard parameters. Despite the improvement, however, the confusion matrices (Tables 8 and 9) revealed a high number of FP (false alarms) as a trade-off for reduced FN (defaulters), which necessitated further model refinement.

The proposed TabNet + GB+RF→soft voting for Kenya and GB + RF+AB→TabNet for Uganda achieved the highest AUC of 0.8847, F1-score of 0.7111 and AUC of 0.8867, F1-score of 0.6756 compared to the best optimized individual models AB AUC of 0.8829, F1-score of 0.7057 (Kenya) and GB AUC of 0.8829, F1-score of 0.6697 (Uganda) respectively. Similarly, the confusion matrix revealed that GB + RF+AB→TabNet and TabNet + GB+RF→soft voting correctly classified more TP compared to the best tuned models, that is; 8 of 301 (3%) infants in Uganda and 2 of 337 (1%) in Kenya. Our results resonate with [47], whose study of predicting Pentavalent3 dropout in East Africa revealed that the all-stacked ensemble models outperformed individual learners benchmarking RF, generalized linear model (GLM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) as meta learners [47].

In Kenya, the advanced ensemble model was statistically significant and supported by a moderate Cohen g effect of 0.1716. Conversely, the performance in Uganda was stochastic indicating that the ensemble architecture provided no statistically valid predictive advantage in that context.

Clinical Justification for Threshold Modification

Given the class imbalance in the datasets, the reliance on the default 0.5 threshold classification to determine the binary outcome of defaulter and immunized, assuming a perfectly symmetrical class distribution, would present a vulnerability. Similarly, it assumes an equivalent real-world cost for type I (FP) and type II (FN) errors, which is not the case in this study. A 0.5 threshold normally produces a high but deceptive accuracy biased towards the majority class while failing to identify the minority. To counteract this bias, we implemented the automated “find best threshold,” shifting the decision boundary away from an arbitrary midpoint and aligning it to the mathematical maximum F1-score.

This pipeline adaptively raised the threshold above the standard 0.5 (TabNet + RF+GB→soft voting at 0.5125 and GB + RF+AB→TabNet at 0.5163), indicating models’ ability to separate the two classes well (see Figure 7). The models are neither completely drowning in the majority class nor suffering from massive probability suppression. It also indicates the models confidently push TP cases past the 0.5 mark without accidentally dragging a flood of FPs along. This trade-off was necessary since FNs are clinically more costly. FN results mean either a zero dose or a defaulter reduces herd immunity. Conversely, a FP is negligible since the child is already immunized, posing no VPD outbreak to the community.

‎
Figure 7. Best advanced ensemble dynamic threshold calibration and error profiling.

Model Interpretability

The current study, like the one by Alemayehu et al [47], used SHAP to establish the global feature importance benchmarking the best advanced ensemble models. Experimental results using TabNet + GB+RF→Custom soft voting ensemble indicated current age of a child, most recent vitamin A1, education, time to water source, and district lived previously as the most influential global predictors in Kenya, with a mean absolute SHAP value (MASV) of 0.1795, 0.0747, 0.0427, 0.0333 and 0.0173, respectively. For Uganda, GB + RF+AB→TabNet revealed vitamin A1, age of child, polio inactive, Pentavalent3, and district were the most influential predictors at MASV of 0.0743, 0.0737, 0.0563, 0.0494, and 0.0317, respectively. Generally, the current age of a child and the most recent vitamin A1 administration are key universal predictors, closely followed by the district and the respondent’s education. The respondent’s education often correlates with the ability to understand the significance of adherence to the immunization schedule. On the other hand, as the child gets older, the chances of getting immunized increase, as a previously missed opportunity due to vaccine stockout or parents’ unavailability can be corrected at the following visit.

However, the influence of other features diverges between the two countries, reflecting unique socioeconomic and structural differences. For example, Polio inactive was a key predictor in Uganda and least in Kenya, and similarly, district lived previously was influential in Kenya and least in Uganda. This result reverberates with the study by Alemayehu et al [47], who stated that feature influence is context-dependent and advised that immunization drop-out policies and interventions should be tailored to subgroups or countries.

The proposed advanced ensembles present the opportunity to reduce the zero dose and immunization schedule defaulting since they could accurately predict 76% for Kenya (256/337) and for Uganda (226/301) of the potential defaulters while minimizing the false alarms. They also presented the highest F1-score, balancing precision and recall. FPs (immunized predicted as unimmunized) may not cause an outbreak or threat, but can raise the budget of immunizing already vaccinated infants, causing a financial loss due to a false alarm. Therefore, models like the proposed advanced ensembles are ideal since they minimize both the FN and FP.

Conclusion

The proposed advanced ensemble learning methods improved performance compared to the best individual base models. In addition, they present an opportunity to reduce the zero dose and scheduled immunization defaulting since they could accurately predict 256 out of 337 (76%) infants in Kenya and 226 out of 301 (75%) infants in Uganda of all the potential defaulters that act as reservoirs for measles and pose a risk of measles outbreaks.

For interpretability, SHAP indicated that the age of a child and the most recent vitamin A1 administration are universal key predictors in both countries. However, other factors varied drastically by country. These findings emphasize the need for context-specific interventions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to measles defaulting.

Recommendations

Based on the SHAP advanced ensemble explainability, the study recommends distinct and localized public health strategies in the 2 countries. In Kenya, the study recommends outreaches in areas with distant water sources, low literacy, and migrating families. Conversely, in Uganda, where immunization history was a predominant predictor, embedding proactive alerts to would-be defaulters and outreaches to high-default districts are recommended. Since the current age of a child and vitamin A1 were universally crucial drivers in both countries, timely reminders as infants reach their peak window of age vulnerability are ideal.

Clinical Utility and Proposed Tool Integration With DHIS2-EPIVAC

One of the proposed stack ensemble GB +RF+AB→TabNet was used to develop a pilot prototype application that proactively flags infants at risk of defaulting basic RI in Uganda (Figure 8). This functional, decisive tool can be used to provide targeted support, like sending reminders to parents or guardians whose infant was predicted to have a likelihood of defaulting. In addition, health workers would proactively schedule outreaches according to the concentration of many likely defaulters using the analytics (see district vs immunization status illustration in Figure 8). This can enable health workers to optimize immunization program delivery to high-default areas that can prevent sporadic VPD outbreaks and related mortality. This tool can also be integrated with EPIVAC (expanded program on immunization vaccination e-registry), a digital vaccination registry in Uganda built on District Health Information Software 2 (DHIS2) that captures individual longitudinal records nationally, like immunization schedule and maternal details, among others. Its operationalization can support early warning and response, just like malaria, climate change, machine learning, and modeling on DHIS2. Figure 8 illustrates the TabNet stack ensemble model prototype.

‎
Figure 8. Screenshot of the basic routine immunization defaulter predictor tool and analytics of dummy records.

Study Limitations

SHAP values represent the advanced ensemble model’s internal predictive logic that was based only on the used features, but the real-world measles defaulting may have other factors that may influence defaulting that this model may not have accounted for. Consequently, the high importance values may reflect training correlations rather than direct epidemiological drivers of defaulting.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the Demographic and Health Survey program. Authors used Grammarly to assist with language editing and grammar correction. The authors take full responsibility for the publication’s content.

Funding

This research received no support from any funding agency.

Data Availability

The dataset is available on [48] with permission from the DHS program.

Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: BAN, JN, PN

Data curation: BAN

Methodology: BAN, PN, JN

Supervision: JN, PN

Writing – review & editing: BAN, JN, PN

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Immunization schedule and feature correlation.

DOCX File, 163 KB

  1. Kiross GT, Chojenta C, Barker D, Loxton D. The effects of health expenditure on infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from panel data analysis. Health Econ Rev. Mar 6, 2020;10(1):5. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2022. Uganda Bureau of Statistics; 2023. URL: https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/UDHS-2022-Report.pdf [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  3. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics; 2023. URL: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/pr143/pr143.pdf [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  4. Galadima AN, Zulkefli NAM, Said SM, Ahmad N. Factors influencing childhood immunization uptake in Africa: A systematic review. Research Square. Preprint posted online on Jul 6, 2020. [CrossRef]
  5. Nsubuga EJ, Morukileng J, Namayanja J, et al. Measles outbreak in Semuto Subcounty, Nakaseke District, Uganda, June-August 2021. IJID Reg. Dec 2022;5:44-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Timchenko VN, Kaplina TA, Leonicheva OA, Bulina OV, Hakizimana JC, Timofeeva EV. Actual problems of measles. Pediatr (SPb). 2017;8(3):120-129. [CrossRef]
  7. Chandir S, Siddiqi DA, Hussain OA, et al. Using predictive analytics to identify children at high risk of defaulting from a routine immunization program: Feasibility study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. Sep 4, 2018;4(3):e63. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Uganda CO humanitarian annual situation report. UNICEF; 2018. URL: https://www.unicef.org/media/76021/file/Uganda-SitRep-Dec-2018.pdf [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  9. Kizza D, Nuwamanya Y, Waak S, et al. Measles outbreak in Bundibugyo District, Western Uganda. Uganda Public Health Bull. 2024;9:51-59. URL: https://uniph.go.ug/measles-outbreak-in-bundibugyo-district-western-uganda-february-june-2023/ [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  10. Mosser JF, Gagne-Maynard W, Rao PC, et al. Mapping diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine coverage in Africa, 2000–2016: a spatial and temporal modelling study. The Lancet. May 2019;393(10183):1843-1855. [CrossRef]
  11. Luman ET, Cairns KL, Perry R, Dietz V, Gittelman D. Use and abuse of rapid monitoring to assess coverage during mass vaccination campaigns. Bull World Health Organ. Sep 2007;85(9):651. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Zziwa GB, Onzima RAD, Govule P, Mugisha JF, Ayiko R. The effects of performance based financing on the health centres of Jinja Diocese, Uganda. Int J Public Health Res. 2015:162-167. URL: https://www.academia.edu/31145042/ [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  13. Dietz V, Dietz-Chavez D. Vaccine Coverage Monitoring," in Vaccinology in Latin America: A Resource for Immunization Managers. Sabin Vaccine Institute; 2018:234-241. URL: https://www.sabin.org/resources/vaccinology-in-latin-america-a-resource-for-immunization-managers/ [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  14. Rhoda DA, Wagai JN, Beshanski-Pedersen BR, et al. Combining cluster surveys to estimate vaccination coverage: experiences from Nigeria’s multiple indicator cluster survey / national immunization coverage survey (MICS/NICS), 2016-17. Vaccine. Sep 3, 2020;38(39):6174-6183. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Wonodi C, Stokes-Prindle C, Aina M, et al. Landscape analysis of routine immunization in Nigeria. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Jan 2012. [CrossRef]
  16. Oster NV, Williams EC, Unger JM, et al. A risk prediction model to identify newborns at risk for missing early childhood vaccinations. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. Dec 31, 2021;10(12):1080-1086. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Mengesha AT, Alkader M, Addis AC. Predicting childhood routine immunization status in Ethiopia using ensemble machine learning algorithms. AIMS 2025 Workshop T2P. 2025. URL: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Yc3iRqKIjG [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  18. Evwiekpaefe AE, Lawi VP. An artificial neural network model for predicting children at risk of defaulting from routine immunization in Nigeria. journalisi. Jun 2024;6(2):810-829. [CrossRef]
  19. Nantongo BA, Nabukenya J, Nabende P, Kamulegeya J. A retrospective cohort study on predicting infants at a risk of defaulting routine immunization in Uganda using machine learning models. JAMIA Open. Dec 2024;7(4):ooae132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Arik S, Pfister T. TabNet: attentive interpretable tabular learning. AAAI. 2021;35(8):6679-6687. [CrossRef]
  21. Wang H, Ding J, Wang S, Li L, Song J, Bai D. Enhancing predictive accuracy for urinary tract infections post-pediatric pyeloplasty with explainable AI: an ensemble TabNet approach. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1). [CrossRef]
  22. Kumar M, Bajaj K, Sharma B, Narang S. A comparative performance assessment of optimized multilevel ensemble learning model with existing classifier models. Big Data. Oct 2022;10(5):371-387. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Verma A, Mehta S. A comparative study of ensemble learning methods for classification in bioinformatics. Presented at: 2017 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering - Confluence (Confluence); Jan 12-13, 2017. [CrossRef]
  24. Hansen ND, Lioma C, Mølbak K. Ensemble learned vaccination uptake prediction using web search queries. 2016. Presented at: CIKM ’16: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management; Oct 24-28, 2016. [CrossRef]
  25. Dada EG, Oyewola DO, Joseph SB, Emebo O, Oluwagbemi OO. Ensemble machine learning for monkeypox transmission time series forecasting. Appl Sci. 2022;12(23):12128. [CrossRef]
  26. Kunapuli G. Ensemble Methods for Machine Learning. Manning Publications; 2023. URL: https://www.manning.com/books/ensemble-methods-for-machine-learning [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  27. Géron A. Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow. O’Reilly Media; 2023. URL: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/hands-on-machine-learning/9781492032632/ [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  28. Ahishakiye E, Wario R, Mwangu W, Taremwa D. Prediction of cervical cancer basing on risk factors using ensemble learning. Presented at: IST-Africa 2020 Conference; May 18-22, 2020. URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9144026 [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  29. Bishop CM. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer; 2006. URL: https://link.springer.com/book/9780387310732 [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  30. Bian S, Wang W. On diversity and accuracy of homogeneous and heterogeneous ensembles. HIS. 2007;4(2):103-128. [CrossRef]
  31. Uganda demographic and health survey 2022. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. May 19, 2026. URL: https://microdata.ubos.org:7070/index.php/catalog/81/get-microdata [Accessed 2026-06-08]
  32. Demographic and health survey key findings. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF; 2017. URL: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR333/FR333.pdf [Accessed 2026-09-21]
  33. Bbaale E. Factors influencing childhood immunization in Uganda. J Health Popul Nutr. Mar 2013;31(1):118-129. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Kembabazi B. A classification model leveraging electronic immunization records to predict child immunization completion: case study - Mukono health facility. Strathmore University; 2021. URL: https:/​/su-plus.​strathmore.edu/​server/​api/​core/​bitstreams/​1de6ebce-b5ec-49cd-a171-06c4fec18ac2/​content [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  35. Chandir S, Siddiqi DA, Shah MT, Dharma VK, Khan AJ. Using predictive analytics to prevent missed opportunities and achieve higher immunization coverage and timeliness. iProc. 2017;3(1):e33. [CrossRef]
  36. Qazi S, Usman M, Mahmood A, Afzaal Abbasi A, Attique M, Nam Y. Smart healthcare using data-driven prediction of immunization defaulters in expanded program on immunization (EPI). Comput Mater Contin. 2020;66(1):589-602. [CrossRef]
  37. Babalola S, Lawan U. Factors predicting BCG immunization status in northern Nigeria: a behavioral-ecological perspective. J Child Health Care. Mar 2009;13(1):46-62. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Baak M, Koopman R, Snoek H, Klous S. A new correlation coefficient between categorical, ordinal and interval variables with Pearson characteristics. Comput Stat Data Anal. Dec 2020;152:107043. [CrossRef]
  39. Wongoutong C. The impact of neglecting feature scaling in k-means clustering. PLOS One. 2024;19(12):e0310839. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Brownlee J. Brownlee J, editor. Machine Learning Mastery With Python: Understand Your Data, Create Accurate Models, and Work Projects End-to-End. 4th ed. 2016. URL: https://share.google/m9nVpTfvYKskVTlbX [Accessed 2026-09-11]
  41. Odilovich RN, Dilmurod K. DATA PREPROCESSING TECHNIQUES IN MACHINE LEARNING. Research Bulletin; 2022:132-137.
  42. Boateng EY, Otoo J, Abaye DA. Basic tenets of classification algorithms k-nearest-neighbor, support vector machine, random forest and neural network: a review. J Data Anal Inf Process. 2020;08(4):341-357. [CrossRef]
  43. Russell S, Norvig P. Introduction. In: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall; 2003. URL: https://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/ICI/References/rn.chap1.pdf [Accessed 2026-09-22]
  44. Nti IK, Nyarko-Boateng O, Aning J. Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms with Different K Values in K-Fold Cross-Validation. I.J. Information Technology and Computer Science; 2021.
  45. A A, N B. A hybrid feature extraction and classification using Xception-RF for multiclass disease classification in plant leaves. Appl Artif Intell. Dec 31, 2023;37(1). [CrossRef]
  46. Sameen F, Momin Kazi A, Kazmi M, A Abbasi M, Ahmed Qazi S, K Stergioulas L. Improving routine immunization coverage through optimally designed predictive models. Comput Mater Contin. 2022;70(1):375-395. [CrossRef]
  47. Alemayehu MA, Kebede SD, Walle AD, Mamo DN, Enyew EB, Adem JB. A stacked ensemble machine learning model for the prediction of pentavalent 3 vaccination dropout in East Africa. Front Big Data. 2025;8:1522578. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. The DHS Program. URL: https://dhsprogram.com/ [Accessed 2026-09-14]


‎
AB: adaptive boosting
AUC: area under the curve
AUROC: area under receiver operating characteristic curve
CV: cross-validation
DHIS2 : District Health Information Software 2
DHS: Demographic and Health Survey
DT: decision trees
EA: enumeration area
EPIVAC: expanded program on immunization vaccination e-registry
FN: false negative
FP: false positive
GB: gradient boosting
GLM: generalized linear model
IRB: Institutional Review Board
KDHS: Kenya Demographic and Health Survey
KNBS: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
LR: logistic regression
MASV: mean absolute SHAP value
MLP: multilayer perceptron
NPHC: National Population and Housing Census
RBA: resource-based approach
RCM: rapid coverage monitoring
RF: random forest
RI: routine immunization
SHAP: Shapley additive explanations
SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique
SMOTE-NC: synthetic minority over-sampling technique nominal continuous
SVM: support vector machine
SVR: support vector regression
TabNet : Tabular Network
TN: true negative
TP: true positive
UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UDHS: Uganda Demographic and Health Survey
VPD: vaccine-preventable disease
XGBoost: Extreme Gradient Boosting


Edited by Fida Dankar; submitted 19.Mar.2026; peer-reviewed by Albert Whata, Ghalia Nassreddine; final revised version received 18.Jul.2026; accepted 02.Sep.2026; published 13.Oct.2026.

Copyright

© Bartha Alexandra Nantongo, Josephine Nabukenya, Peter Nabende. Originally published in JMIR AI (https://ai.jmir.org), 13.Oct.2026.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR AI, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.ai.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.