Manar D Samad1, Alvaro Ulloa1, Gregory J Wehner2, Linyuan Jing1, Dustin Hartzel1, Christopher W Good3, Brent A Williams4, Christopher M Haggerty1, Brandon K Fornwalt5. 1. Department of Imaging Science and Innovation, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. 3. Department of Cardiology, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Imaging Science and Innovation, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky; Department of Radiology, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: bkf@gatech.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to use machine learning to more accurately predict survival after echocardiography. BACKGROUND: Predicting patient outcomes (e.g., survival) following echocardiography is primarily based on ejection fraction (EF) and comorbidities. However, there may be significant predictive information within additional echocardiography-derived measurements combined with clinical electronic health record data. METHODS: Mortality was studied in 171,510 unselected patients who underwent 331,317 echocardiograms in a large regional health system. The authors investigated the predictive performance of nonlinear machine learning models compared with that of linear logistic regression models using 3 different inputs: 1) clinical variables, including 90 cardiovascular-relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes, and age, sex, height, weight, heart rate, blood pressures, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and smoking; 2) clinical variables plus physician-reported EF; and 3) clinical variables and EF, plus 57 additional echocardiographic measurements. Missing data were imputed with a multivariate imputation by using a chained equations algorithm (MICE). The authors compared models versus each other and baseline clinical scoring systems by using a mean area under the curve (AUC) over 10 cross-validation folds and across 10 survival durations (6 to 60 months). RESULTS: Machine learning models achieved significantly higher prediction accuracy (all AUC >0.82) over common clinical risk scores (AUC = 0.61 to 0.79), with the nonlinear random forest models outperforming logistic regression (p < 0.01). The random forest model including all echocardiographic measurements yielded the highest prediction accuracy (p < 0.01 across all models and survival durations). Only 10 variables were needed to achieve 96% of the maximum prediction accuracy, with 6 of these variables being derived from echocardiography. Tricuspid regurgitation velocity was more predictive of survival than LVEF. In a subset of studies with complete data for the top 10 variables, multivariate imputation by chained equations yielded slightly reduced predictive accuracies (difference in AUC of 0.003) compared with the original data. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning can fully utilize large combinations of disparate input variables to predict survival after echocardiography with superior accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to use machine learning to more accurately predict survival after echocardiography. BACKGROUND: Predicting patient outcomes (e.g., survival) following echocardiography is primarily based on ejection fraction (EF) and comorbidities. However, there may be significant predictive information within additional echocardiography-derived measurements combined with clinical electronic health record data. METHODS:Mortality was studied in 171,510 unselected patients who underwent 331,317 echocardiograms in a large regional health system. The authors investigated the predictive performance of nonlinear machine learning models compared with that of linear logistic regression models using 3 different inputs: 1) clinical variables, including 90 cardiovascular-relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes, and age, sex, height, weight, heart rate, blood pressures, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and smoking; 2) clinical variables plus physician-reported EF; and 3) clinical variables and EF, plus 57 additional echocardiographic measurements. Missing data were imputed with a multivariate imputation by using a chained equations algorithm (MICE). The authors compared models versus each other and baseline clinical scoring systems by using a mean area under the curve (AUC) over 10 cross-validation folds and across 10 survival durations (6 to 60 months). RESULTS: Machine learning models achieved significantly higher prediction accuracy (all AUC >0.82) over common clinical risk scores (AUC = 0.61 to 0.79), with the nonlinear random forest models outperforming logistic regression (p < 0.01). The random forest model including all echocardiographic measurements yielded the highest prediction accuracy (p < 0.01 across all models and survival durations). Only 10 variables were needed to achieve 96% of the maximum prediction accuracy, with 6 of these variables being derived from echocardiography. Tricuspid regurgitation velocity was more predictive of survival than LVEF. In a subset of studies with complete data for the top 10 variables, multivariate imputation by chained equations yielded slightly reduced predictive accuracies (difference in AUC of 0.003) compared with the original data. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning can fully utilize large combinations of disparate input variables to predict survival after echocardiography with superior accuracy.
Authors: David C Goff; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Glen Bennett; Sean Coady; Ralph B D'Agostino; Raymond Gibbons; Philip Greenland; Daniel T Lackland; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jennifer G Robinson; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Paul Sorlie; Neil J Stone; Peter W F Wilson; Harmon S Jordan; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sanjiv J Shah; Daniel H Katz; Senthil Selvaraj; Michael A Burke; Clyde W Yancy; Mihai Gheorghiade; Robert O Bonow; Chiang-Ching Huang; Rahul C Deo Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kai Hu; Dan Liu; Stefan Störk; Sebastian Herrmann; Daniel Oder; Georg Ertl; Wolfram Voelker; Frank Weidemann; Peter Nordbeck Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Partho P Sengupta; Yen-Min Huang; Manish Bansal; Ali Ashrafi; Matt Fisher; Khader Shameer; Walt Gall; Joel T Dudley Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Michael M Givertz; Lynne W Stevenson; Maria R Costanzo; Robert C Bourge; Jordan G Bauman; Gregg Ginn; William T Abraham Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dennis L Shung; Benjamin Au; Richard Andrew Taylor; J Kenneth Tay; Stig B Laursen; Adrian J Stanley; Harry R Dalton; Jeffrey Ngu; Michael Schultz; Loren Laine Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Christopher M Haggerty; Brandon K Fornwalt; Alvaro E Ulloa Cerna; Linyuan Jing; Christopher W Good; David P vanMaanen; Sushravya Raghunath; Jonathan D Suever; Christopher D Nevius; Gregory J Wehner; Dustin N Hartzel; Joseph B Leader; Amro Alsaid; Aalpen A Patel; H Lester Kirchner; John M Pfeifer; Brendan J Carry; Marios S Pattichis Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Mayooran Namasivayam; Paul D Myers; John V Guttag; Romain Capoulade; Philippe Pibarot; Michael H Picard; Judy Hung; Collin M Stultz Journal: Open Heart Date: 2022-05
Authors: Jesse K Fitzpatrick; Andrew P Ambrosy; Rishi V Parikh; Thida C Tan; Nisha Bansal; Alan S Go Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: John Harry Caufield; Dibakar Sigdel; John Fu; Howard Choi; Vladimir Guevara-Gonzalez; Ding Wang; Peipei Ping Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 13.081