| Literature DB >> 34073646 |
Yu-Cheng Hsu1, I-Jung Tsai2, Hung Hsu3, Po-Wen Hsu4, Ming-Hui Cheng5, Ying-Li Huang6, Jin-Hua Chen7,8, Meng-Huan Lei1, Ching-Yu Ling2,9.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) algorithms have been applied to predicting coronary artery disease (CAD). Our purpose was to utilize autoantibody isotypes against four different unmodified and malondialdehyde (MDA)-modified peptides among Taiwanese with CAD and healthy controls (HCs) for CAD prediction. In this study, levels of MDA, MDA-modified protein (MDA-protein) adducts, and autoantibody isotypes against unmodified peptides and MDA-modified peptides were measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). To improve the performance of ML, we used decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM) coupled with five-fold cross validation and parameters optimization. Levels of plasma MDA and MDA-protein adducts were higher in CAD patients than in HCs. IgM anti-IGKC76-99 MDA and IgM anti-A1AT284-298 MDA decreased the most in patients with CAD compared to HCs. In the experimental results of CAD prediction, the decision tree classifier achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81; the random forest classifier achieved an AUC of 0.94; the support vector machine achieved an AUC of 0.65 for differentiating between CAD patients with stenosis rates of 70% and HCs. In this study, we demonstrated that autoantibody isotypes imported into machine learning algorithms can lead to accurate models for clinical use.Entities:
Keywords: autoantibody isotype; cardiovascular disease; malondialdehyde; plasma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34073646 PMCID: PMC8229983 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11060961
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Demographic and clinical characteristics of individual subjects contributing to plasma for healthy controls (HCs) and coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with <30%, 30~70%, and >70% stenosis rates.
| Variables | Shuang-Ho Hospital | Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stenosis Rate of Patients | ||||||
| RA ( | RA with CAD ( | HC ( | <30% ( | 30–70% ( | >70% ( | |
| Age (yr) | 56.43 ± 8.29 | 56.26 ± 8.29 | 38.41 ± 10.42 | 62.72 ± 10.32 ** | 63.57 ± 9.55 ** | 62.79 ± 9.27 ** |
| Male | 12 (40%) | 9 (30%) | 24 (60%) | 31 (67%) | 33 (70%) | 60 (75%) |
| Drinker | - | - | 9 (22%) | 7 (15%) | 7 (14%) | 9 (11%) |
| Used to smoke | - | - | 0 | 16 (34%) * | 8 (17%) | 19 (24%) |
| Current smoker | - | - | 13 (32%) | 2 (4%) * | 10 (21%) | 28 (35%) |
| Diabetes | - | - | - | 13 (28%) | 17 (36%) | 31 (39%) |
| Hypertension | - | - | - | 28 (60%) | 40 (85%) | 51 (64%) |
| Use of lipid-lowering agents | - | - | - | 14(30%) | 18 (38%) | 44 (55%) |
| TC (mg/dL) | - | - | 160.03 ± 35.22 | 144.52 ± 37.35 | 142.92 ± 31.35 * | 140.67 ± 45.49 * |
| HDL-c (mg/dL) | - | - | 50.83 ± 15.41 | 45.83 ± 15.74 | 46.46 ± 16.07 | 39.16 ± 12.41 ** |
| LDL-c (mg/dL) | - | - | 94.09 ± 35.92 | 84.29 ± 30.81 | 85.46 ± 33.19 | 89.28 ± 38.42 |
| TG (mg/dL) | - | - | 77.26 ± 28.46 | 117.06 ± 116.06 | 109.25 ± 113.86 | 123.94 ± 104.88 * |
| MDA (μM) | - | - | 10.1 ± 4.7 | 11.37 ± 3.75 | 12.63 ± 5.49 | 12.81 ± 7.64 |
| MDA-protein adducts (μg/mL) | - | - | 0.208 ± 0.016 | 0.219 ± 0.023 * | 0.215 ± 0.021 | 0.216 ± 0.021 * |
p-values by t-test for continuous variables and Chi2 test for categorical variables. * p-value < 0.05, ** p-value < 0.0001.
Association of malondialdehyde (MDA) protein adducts and autoantibody isotypes against unmodified and MDA-modified peptides in coronary artery disease patients with a stenosis rate of >30% compared to patients with a stenosis rate of <30%.
| Variables | Cut Off | Stenosis Rate | Multivariate Logistic Regression Model $ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <30% | >30% | ||||
| ORs (95% C.I.) | |||||
| MDA | 8.453 | 29 | 25 | Ref. | 0.046 |
| 8.453 | 57 | 101 | 2.149 (1.012, 4.561) | ||
| MDA adduct | 0.202 | 18 | 38 | Ref. | 0.129 |
| 0.202 | 68 | 88 | 0.562 (0.267, 1.183) | ||
| IgG anti A2M824–841 | 0.706 | 26 | 27 | Ref. | 0.054 |
| 0.706 | 60 | 99 | 2.022 (0.986, 4.15) | ||
| IgG anti A2M824–841 MDA | 3.118 | 21 | 32 | Ref. | 0.842 |
| 3.118 | 65 | 94 | 1.076 (0.522, 2.219) | ||
| IgG anti ApoB1004022–4040 | 0.990 | 13 | 40 | Ref. | 0.004 |
| 0.990 | 73 | 86 | 0.315 (0.142, 0.701) | ||
| IgG anti ApoB1004022–4040 MDA | 0.582 | 18 | 35 | Ref. | 0.360 |
| 0.582 | 68 | 91 | 0.705 (0.333, 1.492) | ||
| IgG anti A1AT284–298 | 1.260 | 23 | 29 | Ref. | 0.304 |
| 1.260 | 63 | 97 | 1.446 (0.716, 2.922) | ||
| IgG anti A1AT284–298 MDA | 2.033 | 25 | 28 | Ref. | 0.127 |
| 2.033 | 61 | 98 | 1.739 (0.854, 3.539) | ||
| IgG anti IGKC76–99 | 0.766 | 17 | 36 | Ref. | 0.149 |
| 0.766 | 69 | 90 | 0.578 (0.274, 1.217) | ||
| IgG anti IGKC76–99 MDA | 0.677 | 14 | 38 | Ref. | 0.266 |
| 0.677 | 72 | 88 | 0.663 (0.321, 1.37) | ||
| IgM anti A2M824–841 | 0.386 | 10 | 42 | Ref. | 0.004 |
| 0.386 | 76 | 84 | 0.311 (0.139, 0.699) | ||
| IgM anti A2M824–841 MDA | 0.694 | 14 | 38 | Ref. | 0.105 |
| 0.694 | 72 | 88 | 0.533 (0.249, 1.141) | ||
| IgM anti ApoB1004022–4040 | 0.559 | 15 | 38 | Ref. | 0.157 |
| 0.559 | 71 | 88 | 0.580 (0.272, 1.234) | ||
| IgM anti ApoB1004022–4040 MDA | 0.581 | 12 | 41 | Ref. | 0.002 |
| 0.581 | 74 | 85 | 0.288 (0.127, 0.652) | ||
| IgM anti A1AT284–298 | 0.345 | 11 | 43 | Ref. | 0.010 |
| 0.345 | 75 | 83 | 0.356 (0.162, 0.785) | ||
| IgM anti A1AT284–298 MDA | 0.466 | 8 | 45 | Ref. | <0.001 |
| 0.466 | 78 | 81 | 0.191 (0.077, 0.474) | ||
| IgM anti IGKC76–99 | 0.589 | 17 | 36 | Ref. | 0.790 |
| 0.589 | 69 | 90 | 0.905 (0.434, 1.890) | ||
| IgM anti IGKC76–99 MDA | 0.252 | 11 | 41 | Ref. | 0.072 |
| 0.252 | 75 | 85 | 0.485 (0.221, 1.067) | ||
$: adjusted by age, sex, and smoke.
Figure 1Comparison of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of autoantibody isotypes against unmodified and malondialdehyde (MDA)-modified peptides in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients compared to healthy controls (HCs) with a decision tree classifier (A) and random forest classifier (B).
Comparison of AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of autoantibody isotypes against unmodified and malondialdehyde (MDA)-modified peptides in CAD patients compared to HCs with a decision tree classifier (A) and random forest classifier (B).
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Sensitivity (95% C.I.) | Specificity (95% C.I.) | AUC (95% C.I.) | |
| HC v.s. <30% | 68.7% (59.3–77.6%) | 61.9% (55.4–75.5%) | 0.67 (0.55–0.73) |
| HC v.s. 30–70% | 77.4% (66.7–84.5%) | 66.4% (58.7–80.9%) | 0.76 (0.65–0.82) |
| HC v.s. >70% | 85.7% (73.3–90.1%) | 71.7% (68.1–80.6%) | 0.81 (0.76–0.86) |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Sensitivity (95% C.I.) | Specificity (95% C.I.) | AUC (95% C.I.) | |
| HC v.s. <30% | 74.6% (68.0–79.3%) | 64.5% (58.1–72.4%) | 0.76 (0.72–0.82) |
| HC v.s. 30–70% | 90.2% (84.5–93.5%) | 82.7% (77.9–88.1%) | 0.91 (0.87–0.94) |
| HC v.s. >70% | 88.7% (82.7–92.3%) | 85.8% (81.0–89.7%) | 0.94 (0.88–0.96) |