David Haro Alonso1, Miles N Wernick2, Yongyi Yang1, Guido Germano3, Daniel S Berman3, Piotr Slomka3. 1. Medical Imaging Research Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3440 S. Dearborn St., Suite 100, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA. 2. Medical Imaging Research Center, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3440 S. Dearborn St., Suite 100, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA. wernick@iit.edu. 3. Departments of Imaging and Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We developed machine-learning (ML) models to estimate a patient's risk of cardiac death based on adenosine myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and associated clinical data, and compared their performance to baseline logistic regression (LR). We demonstrated an approach to visually convey the reasoning behind a patient's risk to provide insight to clinicians beyond that of a "black box." METHODS: We trained multiple models using 122 potential clinical predictors (features) for 8321 patients, including 551 cases of subsequent cardiac death. Accuracy was measured by area under the ROC curve (AUC), computed within a cross-validation framework. We developed a method to display the model's rationale to facilitate clinical interpretation. RESULTS: The baseline LR (AUC = 0.76; 14 features) was outperformed by all other methods. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model (AUC = 0.77; p = .045; 6 features) required the fewest features. A support vector machine (SVM) model (AUC = 0.83; p < .0001; 49 features) provided the highest accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: LASSO outperformed LR in both accuracy and simplicity (number of features), with SVM yielding best AUC for prediction of cardiac death in patients undergoing MPS. Combined with presenting the reasoning behind the risk scores, our results suggest that ML can be more effective than LR for this application.
BACKGROUND: We developed machine-learning (ML) models to estimate a patient's risk of cardiac death based on adenosine myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and associated clinical data, and compared their performance to baseline logistic regression (LR). We demonstrated an approach to visually convey the reasoning behind a patient's risk to provide insight to clinicians beyond that of a "black box." METHODS: We trained multiple models using 122 potential clinical predictors (features) for 8321 patients, including 551 cases of subsequent cardiac death. Accuracy was measured by area under the ROC curve (AUC), computed within a cross-validation framework. We developed a method to display the model's rationale to facilitate clinical interpretation. RESULTS: The baseline LR (AUC = 0.76; 14 features) was outperformed by all other methods. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model (AUC = 0.77; p = .045; 6 features) required the fewest features. A support vector machine (SVM) model (AUC = 0.83; p < .0001; 49 features) provided the highest accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: LASSO outperformed LR in both accuracy and simplicity (number of features), with SVM yielding best AUC for prediction of cardiac death in patients undergoing MPS. Combined with presenting the reasoning behind the risk scores, our results suggest that ML can be more effective than LR for this application.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac death; data visualization; feature selection; machine learning; risk model
Authors: Francis J Klocke; Michael G Baird; Beverly H Lorell; Timothy M Bateman; Joseph V Messer; Daniel S Berman; Patrick T O'Gara; Blase A Carabello; Richard O Russell; Manuel D Cerqueira; Martin G St John Sutton; Anthony N DeMaria; James E Udelson; J Ward Kennedy; Mario S Verani; Kim Allan Williams; Elliott M Antman; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jeffrey L Anderson; Loren F Hiratzka; David P Faxon; Sharon Ann Hunt; Valentin Fuster; Alice K Jacobs; Raymond J Gibbons; Richard O Russell Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-09-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Miles N Wernick; Yongyi Yang; Jovan G Brankov; Grigori Yourganov; Stephen C Strother Journal: IEEE Signal Process Mag Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 12.551
Authors: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; L J Shaw; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; H Kiat; I Cohen; H Lewin; A Amanullah; X Kang; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1997-08-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: G V Heller; S D Herman; M I Travin; J I Baron; C Santos-Ocampo; J R McClellan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rory Hachamovitch; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Ishac Cohen; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-01-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; H Kiat; J D Friedman; F P Wang; K van Train; L Matzer; J Maddahi; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1993-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew Lin; Márton Kolossváry; Manish Motwani; Ivana Išgum; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: Richard Rios; Robert J H Miller; Nipun Manral; Tali Sharir; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo Di Carli; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Paul B Kavanagh; Tejas Parekh; Joanna X Liang; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr J Slomka Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 6.698
Authors: Richard Rios; Robert J H Miller; Lien Hsin Hu; Yuka Otaki; Ananya Singh; Marcio Diniz; Tali Sharir; Andrew J Einstein; Mathews B Fish; Terrence D Ruddy; Philipp A Kaufmann; Albert J Sinusas; Edward J Miller; Timothy M Bateman; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo DiCarli; Serge Van Kriekinge; Paul Kavanagh; Tejas Parekh; Joanna X Liang; Damini Dey; Daniel S Berman; Piotr Slomka Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 13.081