Balaji K Tamarappoo1, Andrew Lin2, Frederic Commandeur1, Priscilla A McElhinney2, Sebastien Cadet1, Markus Goeller3, Aryabod Razipour2, Xi Chen1, Heidi Gransar1, Stephanie Cantu1, Robert Jh Miller1, Stephan Achenbach4, John Friedman1, Sean Hayes1, Louise Thomson1, Nathan D Wong5, Alan Rozanski6, Piotr J Slomka1, Daniel S Berman1, Damini Dey7. 1. Department of Imaging and Medicine and the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Cardiology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nurnberg, Germany. 4. Department of Cardiology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nurnberg, Germany. 5. Heart Disease Prevention Program, Division of Cardiology, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai St Lukes Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 7. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: damini.dey@cshs.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We sought to assess the performance of a comprehensive machine learning (ML) risk score integrating circulating biomarkers and computed tomography (CT) measures for the long-term prediction of hard cardiac events in asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: We studied 1069 subjects (age 58.2 ± 8.2 years, 54.0% males) from the prospective EISNER trial who underwent coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring CT, serum biomarker assessment, and long-term follow-up. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) was quantified from CT using fully automated deep learning software. Forty-eight serum biomarkers, both established and novel, were assayed. An ML algorithm (XGBoost) was trained using clinical risk factors, CT measures (CAC score, number of coronary lesions, aortic valve calcium score, EAT volume and attenuation), and circulating biomarkers, and validated using repeated 10-fold cross validation. RESULTS: At 14.5 ± 2.0 years, there were 50 hard cardiac events (myocardial infarction or cardiac death). The ML risk score (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUC] 0.81) outperformed the CAC score (0.75) and ASCVD risk score (0.74; both p = 0.02) for the prediction of hard cardiac events. Serum biomarkers provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical data and CT measures in the ML model (net reclassification index 0.53 [95% CI: 0.23-0.81], p < 0.0001). Among novel biomarkers, MMP-9, pentraxin 3, PIGR, and GDF-15 had highest variable importance for ML and reflect the pathways of inflammation, extracellular matrix remodeling, and fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, ML integration of novel circulating biomarkers and noninvasive imaging measures provided superior long-term risk prediction for cardiac events compared to current risk assessment tools.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We sought to assess the performance of a comprehensive machine learning (ML) risk score integrating circulating biomarkers and computed tomography (CT) measures for the long-term prediction of hard cardiac events in asymptomatic subjects. METHODS: We studied 1069 subjects (age 58.2 ± 8.2 years, 54.0% males) from the prospective EISNER trial who underwent coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring CT, serum biomarker assessment, and long-term follow-up. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) was quantified from CT using fully automated deep learning software. Forty-eight serum biomarkers, both established and novel, were assayed. An ML algorithm (XGBoost) was trained using clinical risk factors, CT measures (CAC score, number of coronary lesions, aortic valve calcium score, EAT volume and attenuation), and circulating biomarkers, and validated using repeated 10-fold cross validation. RESULTS: At 14.5 ± 2.0 years, there were 50 hard cardiac events (myocardial infarction or cardiac death). The ML risk score (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUC] 0.81) outperformed the CAC score (0.75) and ASCVD risk score (0.74; both p = 0.02) for the prediction of hard cardiac events. Serum biomarkers provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical data and CT measures in the ML model (net reclassification index 0.53 [95% CI: 0.23-0.81], p < 0.0001). Among novel biomarkers, MMP-9, pentraxin 3, PIGR, and GDF-15 had highest variable importance for ML and reflect the pathways of inflammation, extracellular matrix remodeling, and fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, ML integration of novel circulating biomarkers and noninvasive imaging measures provided superior long-term risk prediction for cardiac events compared to current risk assessment tools.
Authors: Aaron R Folsom; Lloyd E Chambless; Christie M Ballantyne; Josef Coresh; Gerardo Heiss; Kenneth K Wu; Eric Boerwinkle; Thomas H Mosley; Paul Sorlie; Guoqing Diao; A Richey Sharrett Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-07-10
Authors: Stefan Blankenberg; Hans J Rupprecht; Odette Poirier; Christoph Bickel; Marek Smieja; Gerd Hafner; Jürgen Meyer; François Cambien; Laurence Tiret Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David S Owens; Matthew J Budoff; Ronit Katz; Junichiro Takasu; David M Shavelle; J Jeffrey Carr; Susan R Heckbert; Catherine M Otto; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Richard A Kronmal; Kevin D O'Brien Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06
Authors: Yuen-Kwun Wong; Chloe Y Y Cheung; Clara S Tang; Ka-Wing Au; JoJo S H Hai; Chi-Ho Lee; Kui-Kai Lau; Bernard M Y Cheung; Pak-Chung Sham; Aimin Xu; Karen S L Lam; Hung-Fat Tse Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Martin G Larson; Joseph M Massaro; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Xiaoyan Yin; Martin G Larson; Jennifer F Yamamoto; João D Fontes; Sekar Kathiresan; Jian Rong; Daniel Levy; John F Keaney; Thomas J Wang; Joanne M Murabito; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Thijs C van Holten; Leonie F Waanders; Philip G de Groot; Joost Vissers; Imo E Hoefer; Gerard Pasterkamp; Menno W J Prins; Mark Roest Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stephen Kaptoge; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Gordon Lowe; Mark B Pepys; Simon G Thompson; Rory Collins; John Danesh Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Federico Greco; Rodrigo Salgado; Wim Van Hecke; Romualdo Del Buono; Paul M Parizel; Carlo Augusto Mallio Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-03
Authors: Andrew Lin; Márton Kolossváry; Manish Motwani; Ivana Išgum; Pál Maurovich-Horvat; Piotr J Slomka; Damini Dey Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2021-03-22
Authors: G A Bonaterra; N Struck; S Zuegel; A Schwarz; L Mey; H Schwarzbach; J Strelau; R Kinscherf Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Irina Gîrleanu; Anca Trifan; Laura Huiban; Cristina Muzîca; Oana Cristina Petrea; Ana Maria Sîngeap; Camelia Cojocariu; Stefan Chiriac; Tudor Cuciureanu; Irina Iuliana Costache; Carol Stanciu Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-07-12