Literature DB >> 31535314

Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.

William J Gibson1,2, Tarek Nafee1, Ryan Travis1, Megan Yee1, Mathieu Kerneis1, Magnus Ohman3, C Michael Gibson4.   

Abstract

Traditional statistical models allow population based inferences and comparisons. Machine learning (ML) explores datasets to develop algorithms that do not assume linear relationships between variables and outcomes and that may account for higher order interactions to make individualized outcome predictions. To evaluate the performance of machine learning models compared to traditional risk stratification methods for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that are treated with antithrombotic therapy. Data on 24,178 ACS patients were pooled from four randomized controlled trials. The super learner ensemble algorithm selected weights for 23 machine learning models and was compared to traditional models. The efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The safety endpoint was a composite of TIMI major and minor bleeding or bleeding requiring medical attention. For the MACE outcome, the super learner model produced a higher c-statistic (0.734) than logistic regression (0.714), the TIMI risk score (0.489), and a new cardiovascular risk score developed in the dataset (0.644). For the bleeding outcome, the super learner demonstrated a similar c-statistic as the logistic regression model (0.670 vs. 0.671). The machine learning risk estimates were highly calibrated with observed efficacy and bleeding outcomes (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value = 0.692 and 0.970, respectively). The super learner algorithm was highly calibrated on both efficacy and safety outcomes and produced the highest c-statistic for prediction of MACE compared to traditional risk stratification methods. This analysis demonstrates a contemporary application of machine learning to guide patient-level antithrombotic therapy treatment decisions.Clinical Trial Registration ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 46: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402597. Unique Identifier: NCT00402597. ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 51: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00809965. Unique Identifier: NCT00809965. GEMINI ACS-1: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02293395. Unique Identifier: NCT02293395. PIONEER-AF PCI: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01830543. Unique Identifier: NCT01830543.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute coronary syndrome; Machine learning; Major adverse cardiovascular events; Personalized medicine; Super learner

Year:  2020        PMID: 31535314      PMCID: PMC7183928          DOI: 10.1007/s11239-019-01940-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis        ISSN: 0929-5305            Impact factor:   2.300


  30 in total

1.  The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: A method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making.

Authors:  E M Antman; M Cohen; P J Bernink; C H McCabe; T Horacek; G Papuchis; B Mautner; R Corbalan; D Radley; E Braunwald
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-08-16       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Jessica L Mega; Eugene Braunwald; Stephen D Wiviott; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Deepak L Bhatt; Christoph Bode; Paul Burton; Marc Cohen; Nancy Cook-Bruns; Keith A A Fox; Shinya Goto; Sabina A Murphy; Alexei N Plotnikov; David Schneider; Xiang Sun; Freek W A Verheugt; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-11-13       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques for Heart Failure Readmissions.

Authors:  Bobak J Mortazavi; Nicholas S Downing; Emily M Bucholz; Kumar Dharmarajan; Ajay Manhapra; Shu-Xia Li; Sahand N Negahban; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

4.  Learning About Machine Learning: The Promise and Pitfalls of Big Data and the Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Rahul C Deo; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

5.  Unintended Consequences of Machine Learning in Medicine.

Authors:  Federico Cabitza; Raffaele Rasoini; Gian Franco Gensini
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence in Precision Cardiovascular Medicine.

Authors:  Chayakrit Krittanawong; HongJu Zhang; Zhen Wang; Mehmet Aydar; Takeshi Kitai
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Cardiovascular Event Prediction by Machine Learning: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

Authors:  Bharath Ambale-Venkatesh; Xiaoying Yang; Colin O Wu; Kiang Liu; W Gregory Hundley; Robyn McClelland; Antoinette S Gomes; Aaron R Folsom; Steven Shea; Eliseo Guallar; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 17.367

8.  Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial.

Authors:  J L Mega; E Braunwald; S Mohanavelu; P Burton; R Poulter; F Misselwitz; V Hricak; E S Barnathan; P Bordes; A Witkowski; V Markov; L Oppenheimer; C M Gibson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Risk prediction model for in-hospital mortality in women with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A machine learning approach.

Authors:  Hend Mansoor; Islam Y Elgendy; Richard Segal; Anthony A Bavry; Jiang Bian
Journal:  Heart Lung       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 2.210

10.  Comparison of Approaches for Heart Failure Case Identification From Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Saul Blecker; Stuart D Katz; Leora I Horwitz; Gilad Kuperman; Hannah Park; Alex Gold; David Sontag
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 14.676

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Machine learning versus conventional clinical methods in guiding management of heart failure patients-a systematic review.

Authors:  George Bazoukis; Stavros Stavrakis; Jiandong Zhou; Sandeep Chandra Bollepalli; Gary Tse; Qingpeng Zhang; Jagmeet P Singh; Antonis A Armoundas
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 4.214

2.  Comparison of Machine Learning Methods and Conventional Logistic Regressions for Predicting Gestational Diabetes Using Routine Clinical Data: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Yunzhen Ye; Yu Xiong; Qiongjie Zhou; Jiangnan Wu; Xiaotian Li; Xirong Xiao
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 4.011

Review 3.  Immunopathology, host-virus genome interactions, and effective vaccine development in SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Desh Deepak Singh; Ihn Han; Eun-Ha Choi; Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 7.271

4.  Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility.

Authors:  Amitava Banerjee; Suliang Chen; Ghazaleh Fatemifar; Mohamad Zeina; R Thomas Lumbers; Johanna Mielke; Simrat Gill; Dipak Kotecha; Daniel F Freitag; Spiros Denaxas; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 11.150

5.  Anemia or other comorbidities? using machine learning to reveal deeper insights into the drivers of acute coronary syndromes in hospital admitted patients.

Authors:  Faisal Alsayegh; Moh A Alkhamis; Fatima Ali; Sreeja Attur; Nicholas M Fountain-Jones; Mohammad Zubaid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Retrospective validation of a machine learning clinical decision support tool for myocardial infarction risk stratification.

Authors:  Saarang Panchavati; Carson Lam; Nicole S Zelin; Emily Pellegrini; Gina Barnes; Jana Hoffman; Anurag Garikipati; Jacob Calvert; Qingqing Mao; Ritankar Das
Journal:  Healthc Technol Lett       Date:  2021-08-31

7.  Prognostically relevant periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction associated with percutaneous coronary interventions: a Consensus Document of the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

Authors:  Heerajnarain Bulluck; Valeria Paradies; Emanuele Barbato; Andreas Baumbach; Hans Erik Bøtker; Davide Capodanno; Raffaele De Caterina; Claudio Cavallini; Sean M Davidson; Dmitriy N Feldman; Péter Ferdinandy; Sebastiano Gili; Mariann Gyöngyösi; Vijay Kunadian; Sze-Yuan Ooi; Rosalinda Madonna; Michael Marber; Roxana Mehran; Gjin Ndrepepa; Cinzia Perrino; Stefanie Schüpke; Johanne Silvain; Joost P G Sluijter; Giuseppe Tarantini; Gabor G Toth; Linda W Van Laake; Clemens von Birgelen; Michel Zeitouni; Allan S Jaffe; Kristian Thygesen; Derek J Hausenloy
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Machine learning enhances the performance of short and long-term mortality prediction model in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Woojoo Lee; Joongyub Lee; Seoung-Il Woo; Seong Huan Choi; Jang-Whan Bae; Seungpil Jung; Myung Ho Jeong; Won Kyung Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Prediction of incident myocardial infarction using machine learning applied to harmonized electronic health record data.

Authors:  Divneet Mandair; Premanand Tiwari; Steven Simon; Kathryn L Colborn; Michael A Rosenberg
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Time-to-event prediction analysis of patients with chronic heart failure comorbid with atrial fibrillation: a LightGBM model.

Authors:  Chu Zheng; Jing Tian; Ke Wang; Linai Han; Hong Yang; Jia Ren; Chenhao Li; Qing Zhang; Qinghua Han; Yanbo Zhang
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.