Ankush Jamthikar1, Deep Gupta1, Luca Saba2, Narendra N Khanna3, Tadashi Araki4, Klaudija Viskovic5, Sophie Mavrogeni6, John R Laird7, Gyan Pareek8, Martin Miner9, Petros P Sfikakis10, Athanasios Protogerou11, Vijay Viswanathan12, Aditya Sharma13, Andrew Nicolaides14, George D Kitas15, Jasjit S Suri16. 1. Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. 3. Department of Cardiology, Indraprastha APOLLO Hospitals, New Delhi, India. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toho University, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology and Ultrasound, University Hospital for Infectious Diseases, Zagreb, Croatia. 6. Cardiology Clinic, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece. 7. Heart and Vascular Institute, Adventist Health St. Helena, St Helena, CA, USA. 8. Minimally Invasive Urology Institute, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 9. Men's Health Center, Miriam Hospital Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 10. Rheumatology Unit, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 11. Department of Cardiovascular Prevention & Research Unit Clinic & Laboratory of Pathophysiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 12. MV Hospital for Diabetes and Professor M Viswanathan Diabetes Research Centre, Chennai, India. 13. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 14. Vascular Screening and Diagnostic Centre and University of Nicosia Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus. 15. R & D Academic Affairs, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK. 16. Stroke Monitoring and Diagnostic Division, AtheroPoint™, Roseville, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Statistically derived cardiovascular risk calculators (CVRC) that use conventional risk factors, generally underestimate or overestimate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or stroke events primarily due to lack of integration of plaque burden. This study investigates the role of machine learning (ML)-based CVD/stroke risk calculators (CVRCML) and compares against statistically derived CVRC (CVRCStat) based on (I) conventional factors or (II) combined conventional with plaque burden (integrated factors). METHODS: The proposed study is divided into 3 parts: (I) statistical calculator: initially, the 10-year CVD/stroke risk was computed using 13 types of CVRCStat (without and with plaque burden) and binary risk stratification of the patients was performed using the predefined thresholds and risk classes; (II) ML calculator: using the same risk factors (without and with plaque burden), as adopted in 13 different CVRCStat, the patients were again risk-stratified using CVRCML based on support vector machine (SVM) and finally; (III) both types of calculators were evaluated using AUC based on ROC analysis, which was computed using combination of predicted class and endpoint equivalent to CVD/stroke events. RESULTS: An Institutional Review Board approved 202 patients (156 males and 46 females) of Japanese ethnicity were recruited for this study with a mean age of 69±11 years. The AUC for 13 different types of CVRCStat calculators were: AECRS2.0 (AUC 0.83, P<0.001), QRISK3 (AUC 0.72, P<0.001), WHO (AUC 0.70, P<0.001), ASCVD (AUC 0.67, P<0.001), FRScardio (AUC 0.67, P<0.01), FRSstroke (AUC 0.64, P<0.001), MSRC (AUC 0.63, P=0.03), UKPDS56 (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), NIPPON (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), PROCAM (AUC 0.59, P<0.001), RRS (AUC 0.57, P<0.001), UKPDS60 (AUC 0.53, P<0.001), and SCORE (AUC 0.45, P<0.001), while the AUC for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors (AUC 0.88, P<0.001), a 42% increase in performance. The overall risk-stratification accuracy for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors was 92.52% which was higher compared all the other CVRCStat. CONCLUSIONS: ML-based CVD/stroke risk calculator provided a higher predictive ability of 10-year CVD/stroke compared to the 13 different types of statistically derived risk calculators including integrated model AECRS 2.0. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Statistically derived cardiovascular risk calculators (CVRC) that use conventional risk factors, generally underestimate or overestimate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or stroke events primarily due to lack of integration of plaque burden. This study investigates the role of machine learning (ML)-based CVD/stroke risk calculators (CVRCML) and compares against statistically derived CVRC (CVRCStat) based on (I) conventional factors or (II) combined conventional with plaque burden (integrated factors). METHODS: The proposed study is divided into 3 parts: (I) statistical calculator: initially, the 10-year CVD/stroke risk was computed using 13 types of CVRCStat (without and with plaque burden) and binary risk stratification of the patients was performed using the predefined thresholds and risk classes; (II) ML calculator: using the same risk factors (without and with plaque burden), as adopted in 13 different CVRCStat, the patients were again risk-stratified using CVRCML based on support vector machine (SVM) and finally; (III) both types of calculators were evaluated using AUC based on ROC analysis, which was computed using combination of predicted class and endpoint equivalent to CVD/stroke events. RESULTS: An Institutional Review Board approved 202 patients (156 males and 46 females) of Japanese ethnicity were recruited for this study with a mean age of 69±11 years. The AUC for 13 different types of CVRCStat calculators were: AECRS2.0 (AUC 0.83, P<0.001), QRISK3 (AUC 0.72, P<0.001), WHO (AUC 0.70, P<0.001), ASCVD (AUC 0.67, P<0.001), FRScardio (AUC 0.67, P<0.01), FRSstroke (AUC 0.64, P<0.001), MSRC (AUC 0.63, P=0.03), UKPDS56 (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), NIPPON (AUC 0.63, P<0.001), PROCAM (AUC 0.59, P<0.001), RRS (AUC 0.57, P<0.001), UKPDS60 (AUC 0.53, P<0.001), and SCORE (AUC 0.45, P<0.001), while the AUC for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors (AUC 0.88, P<0.001), a 42% increase in performance. The overall risk-stratification accuracy for the CVRCML with integrated risk factors was 92.52% which was higher compared all the other CVRCStat. CONCLUSIONS: ML-based CVD/stroke risk calculator provided a higher predictive ability of 10-year CVD/stroke compared to the 13 different types of statistically derived risk calculators including integrated model AECRS 2.0. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: J David Spence; Michael Eliasziw; Maria DiCicco; Daniel G Hackam; Ramzy Galil; Tara Lohmann Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: James H Stein; Claudia E Korcarz; R Todd Hurst; Eva Lonn; Christopher B Kendall; Emile R Mohler; Samer S Najjar; Christopher M Rembold; Wendy S Post Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Luca Saba; Pankaj K Jain; Harman S Suri; Nobutaka Ikeda; Tadashi Araki; Bikesh K Singh; Andrew Nicolaides; Shoaib Shafique; Ajay Gupta; John R Laird; Jasjit S Suri Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2017-05-13 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: P-J Touboul; M G Hennerici; S Meairs; H Adams; P Amarenco; N Bornstein; L Csiba; M Desvarieux; S Ebrahim; R Hernandez Hernandez; M Jaff; S Kownator; T Naqvi; P Prati; T Rundek; M Sitzer; U Schminke; J-C Tardif; A Taylor; E Vicaut; K S Woo Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Ankush D Jamthikar; Deep Gupta; Laura E Mantella; Luca Saba; John R Laird; Amer M Johri; Jasjit S Suri Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Amer M Johri; Laura E Mantella; Ankush D Jamthikar; Luca Saba; John R Laird; Jasjit S Suri Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: George Konstantonis; Krishna V Singh; Petros P Sfikakis; Ankush D Jamthikar; George D Kitas; Suneet K Gupta; Luca Saba; Kleio Verrou; Narendra N Khanna; Zoltan Ruzsa; Aditya M Sharma; John R Laird; Amer M Johri; Manudeep Kalra; Athanasios Protogerou; Jasjit S Suri Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Jasjit S Suri; Sushant Agarwal; Gian Luca Chabert; Alessandro Carriero; Alessio Paschè; Pietro S C Danna; Luca Saba; Armin Mehmedović; Gavino Faa; Inder M Singh; Monika Turk; Paramjit S Chadha; Amer M Johri; Narendra N Khanna; Sophie Mavrogeni; John R Laird; Gyan Pareek; Martin Miner; David W Sobel; Antonella Balestrieri; Petros P Sfikakis; George Tsoulfas; Athanasios D Protogerou; Durga Prasanna Misra; Vikas Agarwal; George D Kitas; Jagjit S Teji; Mustafa Al-Maini; Surinder K Dhanjil; Andrew Nicolaides; Aditya Sharma; Vijay Rathore; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad; Pudukode R Krishnan; Ferenc Nagy; Zoltan Ruzsa; Mostafa M Fouda; Subbaram Naidu; Klaudija Viskovic; Mannudeep K Kalra Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Demilade A Adedinsewo; Amy W Pollak; Sabrina D Phillips; Taryn L Smith; Anna Svatikova; Sharonne N Hayes; Sharon L Mulvagh; Colleen Norris; Veronique L Roger; Peter A Noseworthy; Xiaoxi Yao; Rickey E Carter Journal: Circ Res Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 23.213
Authors: Mainak Biswas; Luca Saba; Tomaž Omerzu; Amer M Johri; Narendra N Khanna; Klaudija Viskovic; Sophie Mavrogeni; John R Laird; Gyan Pareek; Martin Miner; Antonella Balestrieri; Petros P Sfikakis; Athanasios Protogerou; Durga Prasanna Misra; Vikas Agarwal; George D Kitas; Raghu Kolluri; Aditya Sharma; Vijay Viswanathan; Zoltan Ruzsa; Andrew Nicolaides; Jasjit S Suri Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.903
Authors: Jasjit S Suri; Anudeep Puvvula; Mainak Biswas; Misha Majhail; Luca Saba; Gavino Faa; Inder M Singh; Ronald Oberleitner; Monika Turk; Paramjit S Chadha; Amer M Johri; J Miguel Sanches; Narendra N Khanna; Klaudija Viskovic; Sophie Mavrogeni; John R Laird; Gyan Pareek; Martin Miner; David W Sobel; Antonella Balestrieri; Petros P Sfikakis; George Tsoulfas; Athanasios Protogerou; Durga Prasanna Misra; Vikas Agarwal; George D Kitas; Puneet Ahluwalia; Raghu Kolluri; Jagjit Teji; Mustafa Al Maini; Ann Agbakoba; Surinder K Dhanjil; Meyypan Sockalingam; Ajit Saxena; Andrew Nicolaides; Aditya Sharma; Vijay Rathore; Janet N A Ajuluchukwu; Mostafa Fatemi; Azra Alizad; Vijay Viswanathan; Pudukode R Krishnan; Subbaram Naidu Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 4.589