Literature DB >> 29909114

Predicting Survival From Large Echocardiography and Electronic Health Record Datasets: Optimization With Machine Learning.

Manar D Samad1, Alvaro Ulloa1, Gregory J Wehner2, Linyuan Jing1, Dustin Hartzel1, Christopher W Good3, Brent A Williams4, Christopher M Haggerty1, Brandon K Fornwalt5.   

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.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  echocardiography; electronic health records; machine learning; mortality

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29909114      PMCID: PMC6286869          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.04.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1876-7591


  23 in total

1.  Logistic regression had superior performance compared with regression trees for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with heart failure.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; Jack V Tu; Douglas S Lee
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

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

3.  A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time.

Authors:  M Schemper; T L Smith
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1996-08

4.  Phenomapping for novel classification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

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

5.  Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories.

Authors:  P W Wilson; R B D'Agostino; D Levy; A M Belanger; H Silbershatz; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-05-12       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Echocardiographic Determinants of One-Year All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure Complicated by Significant Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation.

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

7.  Cognitive Machine-Learning Algorithm for Cardiac Imaging: A Pilot Study for Differentiating Constrictive Pericarditis From Restrictive Cardiomyopathy.

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

8.  Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

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

9.  Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection.

Authors:  Sudhir Varma; Richard Simon
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-02-23       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?

Authors:  Stephen F Weng; Jenna Reps; Joe Kai; Jonathan M Garibaldi; Nadeem Qureshi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Future of Health Care.

Authors:  Nariman Noorbakhsh-Sabet; Ramin Zand; Yanfei Zhang; Vida Abedi
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Karthik Seetharam; James K Min
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Oct-Dec

3.  Validation of a Machine Learning Model That Outperforms Clinical Risk Scoring Systems for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

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

4.  Deep-learning-assisted analysis of echocardiographic videos improves predictions of all-cause mortality.

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

5.  Missing Value Estimation using Clustering and Deep Learning within Multiple Imputation Framework.

Authors:  Manar D Samad; Sakib Abrar; Norou Diawara
Journal:  Knowl Based Syst       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 8.139

6.  Predicting outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis using machine learning: the Aortic Stenosis Risk (ASteRisk) score.

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

7.  Prognostic value of echocardiography for heart failure and death in adults with chronic kidney disease.

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

Review 8.  Cardiovascular informatics: building a bridge to data harmony.

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

9.  Predicting Future Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Elsie Gyang Ross; Kenneth Jung; Joel T Dudley; Li Li; Nicholas J Leeper; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2019-03

10.  Post-stroke Anxiety Analysis via Machine Learning Methods.

Authors:  Jirui Wang; Defeng Zhao; Meiqing Lin; Xinyu Huang; Xiuli Shang
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 5.750

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.