Cargando…

Machine-learning versus traditional approaches for atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk prognostication in primary prevention cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction is important for guiding the intensity of therapy in CVD prevention. Whilst current risk prediction algorithms use traditional statistical approaches, machine learning (ML) presents an alternative method that may improve risk prediction accura...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Weber, Laranjo, Liliana, Klimis, Harry, Chiang, Jason, Yue, Jason, Marschner, Simone, Quiroz, Juan C, Jorm, Louisa, Chow, Clara K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10284268/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36869800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad017
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction is important for guiding the intensity of therapy in CVD prevention. Whilst current risk prediction algorithms use traditional statistical approaches, machine learning (ML) presents an alternative method that may improve risk prediction accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether ML algorithms demonstrate greater performance compared with traditional risk scores in CVD risk prognostication. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS Web of Science Core collections were searched for studies comparing ML models to traditional risk scores for CVD risk prediction between the years 2000 and 2021. We included studies that assessed both ML and traditional risk scores in adult (≥18 year old) primary prevention populations. We assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. Only studies that provided a measure of discrimination [i.e. C-statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 16 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis (3302 515 individuals). All study designs were retrospective cohort studies. Out of 16 studies, 3 externally validated their models, and 11 reported calibration metrics. A total of 11 studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The summary C-statistics (95% CI) of the top-performing ML models and traditional risk scores were 0.773 (95% CI: 0.740–0.806) and 0.759 (95% CI: 0.726–0.792), respectively. The difference in C-statistic was 0.0139 (95% CI: 0.0139–0.140), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: ML models outperformed traditional risk scores in the discrimination of CVD risk prognostication. Integration of ML algorithms into electronic healthcare systems in primary care could improve identification of patients at high risk of subsequent CVD events and hence increase opportunities for CVD prevention. It is uncertain whether they can be implemented in clinical settings. Future implementation research is needed to examine how ML models may be utilized for primary prevention. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020220811).