| Literature DB >> 26531126 |
Xingyu Zhang1, Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh2, David A Bluemke3, Brett R Cowan4, J Paul Finn5, Alan H Kadish6, Daniel C Lee7, Joao A C Lima8, William G Hundley9, Avan Suinesiaputra10, Alistair A Young11, Pau Medrano-Gracia12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although adverse left ventricular shape changes (remodeling) after myocardial infarction (MI) are predictive of morbidity and mortality, current clinical assessment is limited to simple mass and volume measures, or dimension ratios such as length to width ratio. We hypothesized that information maximizing component analysis (IMCA), a supervised feature extraction method, can provide more efficient and sensitive indices of overall remodeling.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26531126 PMCID: PMC4632345 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-015-0709-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Demographics for the MESA and DETERMINE datasets (mean ± SD)
| Units | DETERMINE | MESA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (female/male)‡ | 60/238 | 1034/975 | |
| Age† | years | 62.76 ± 10.80 | 61.47 ± 10.15 |
| Height‡ | cm | 173.91 ± 9.80 | 165.97 ± 9.99 |
| Weight† | kg | 90.06 ± 19.15 | 76.75 ± 16.50 |
| Systolic BP | mmHg | 127.50 ± 20.14 | 126.00 ± 22.00 |
| Diastolic BP‡ | mmHg | 73.86 ± 11.34 | 71.49 ± 10.33 |
| Diabetes history‡ | % | 13.11 | 35.67 |
| Smoking status | % | 12.51 | 11.33 |
| ESVI‡ | ml/m2 | 58.36 ± 24.39 | 25.48 ± 8.69 |
| EDVI‡ | ml/m2 | 96.53 ± 25.03 | 67.83 ± 13.29 |
For continuous variables, p values report a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of the null hypothesis. For categorical variables the p value reports a χ 2 test of the null hypothesis
BP blood pressure, ESVI end-systolic volume index, EDVI end-diastolic volume index
†p < 0.05; ‡p < 0.01
Fig. 1Data processing flow chart. Firstly, PCA was performed on the shape parameters of left ventricle finite element model (LV FEM) at end diastole (ED), end systole (ES), and using the combination of ED and ES. Secondly, PCA modes which accounted for 98.5 % of the total variation were standardized. Thirdly, LDA and IMCA were applied on the standardized components to generate global modes of variation which were assessed with a logistic regression classification model (LR model), including other confounding variables
LDA and IMCA Scores for MESA and DETERMINE (mean ± SD)
| MESA | DETERMINE | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ED LDA | −0.30 ± 0.61 | 1.99 ± 0.77 | <0.0001 |
| ES LDA | −0.33 ± 0.48 | 2.18 ± 0.80 | <0.0001 |
| ED&ES LDA | −0.34 ± 0.44 | 2.25 ± 0.73 | <0.0001 |
| ED IMCA | −0.29 ± 0.66 | 1.94 ± 0.65 | <0.0001 |
| ES IMCA | −0.31 ± 0.58 | 2.07 ± 0.68 | <0.0001 |
| ED&ES IMCA | −0.32 ± 0.56 | 2.13 ± 0.57 | <0.0001 |
Fig. 2Distribution of IMCA Scores of MESA and DETERMINE for the best case (ED&ES). ED and ES figures do not show perceivable differences in their equivalent plots and are therefore omitted
Correlation coefficients among IMCA and LDA modes
| ED IMCA | ES IMCA | ED&ES IMCA | ED LDA | ES LDA | ED&ES LDA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ED IMCA | 1.00 | |||||
| ES IMCA | 0.81 | 1.00 | ||||
| ED&ES IMCA | 0.87 | 0.92 | 1.00 | |||
| ED LDA | 0.97 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 1.00 | ||
| ES LDA | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 1.00 | |
| ED&ES LDA | 0.86 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 1.00 |
All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant p < 0.05
Fig. 3The derived shape indices allow for a continuous representation of disease remodeling. In the figure, the corresponding shapes from the percentiles of the IMCA ED&ES index are shown. Mean values (black triangles) for the asymptomatic (MESA) and myocardial infarct group (DETERMINE) show over 50 percentiles of separation for this index. Percentiles correspond to the histogram shown in Fig. 2
Assessment table showing measures of goodness-of-fit for the eight logistic regression models
| LR coefficient ( | σ ( | P value | Deviance | AIC | BIC | AUC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | – | – | – | 1500 | 1518 | 1569 | 76.94 |
| MASSVOL + Baseline | – | – | – | 719 | 743 | 812 | 95.70 |
| EDVI + ESVI + Baseline | – | – | – | 751 | 773 | 837 | 95.89 |
| ED LDA Score + Baseline | 5.1651 | 0.3736 | <0.0001 | 307 | 327 | 385 | 99.15 |
| ES LDA Score + Baseline | 4.8458 | 0.3724 | <0.0001 | 241 | 261 | 319 | 99.42 |
| ED&ES LDA Score + Baseline | 7.0549 | 0.7585 | <0.0001 | 130 | 150 | 207 | 99.77 |
| ED IMCA Score + Baseline | 6.1631 | 0.4974 | <0.0001 | 271 | 291 | 348 | 99.49 |
| ES IMCA Score + Baseline | 6.9857 | 0.6593 | <0.0001 | 179 | 199 | 256 | 99.81 |
| ED&ES IMCA Score + Baseline | 37.1034 | 13.5261 | 0.0061 | 16 | 36 | 93 | 99.99 |
Coefficients show the differential weight when compared to the Baseline model
Fig. 4ROC curves for the analyzed logistic regression models. Right figure zooms into the upper-left corner
Fig. 5Graph of ESVI versus EDVI with linear regression lines for MESA (control group) and DETERMINE (MI patients)
Fig. 6Graph of EF versus ESVI with linear regression lines for MESA (control group) and DETERMINE (MI patients)