Cargando…

Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?

BACKGROUND: Current approaches to predict cardiovascular risk fail to identify many people who would benefit from preventive treatment, while others receive unnecessary intervention. Machine-learning offers opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors. We a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weng, Stephen F., Reps, Jenna, Kai, Joe, Garibaldi, Jonathan M., Qureshi, Nadeem
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174944
_version_ 1782519764328906752
author Weng, Stephen F.
Reps, Jenna
Kai, Joe
Garibaldi, Jonathan M.
Qureshi, Nadeem
author_facet Weng, Stephen F.
Reps, Jenna
Kai, Joe
Garibaldi, Jonathan M.
Qureshi, Nadeem
author_sort Weng, Stephen F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current approaches to predict cardiovascular risk fail to identify many people who would benefit from preventive treatment, while others receive unnecessary intervention. Machine-learning offers opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors. We assessed whether machine-learning can improve cardiovascular risk prediction. METHODS: Prospective cohort study using routine clinical data of 378,256 patients from UK family practices, free from cardiovascular disease at outset. Four machine-learning algorithms (random forest, logistic regression, gradient boosting machines, neural networks) were compared to an established algorithm (American College of Cardiology guidelines) to predict first cardiovascular event over 10-years. Predictive accuracy was assessed by area under the ‘receiver operating curve’ (AUC); and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) to predict 7.5% cardiovascular risk (threshold for initiating statins). FINDINGS: 24,970 incident cardiovascular events (6.6%) occurred. Compared to the established risk prediction algorithm (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.723–0.735), machine-learning algorithms improved prediction: random forest +1.7% (AUC 0.745, 95% CI 0.739–0.750), logistic regression +3.2% (AUC 0.760, 95% CI 0.755–0.766), gradient boosting +3.3% (AUC 0.761, 95% CI 0.755–0.766), neural networks +3.6% (AUC 0.764, 95% CI 0.759–0.769). The highest achieving (neural networks) algorithm predicted 4,998/7,404 cases (sensitivity 67.5%, PPV 18.4%) and 53,458/75,585 non-cases (specificity 70.7%, NPV 95.7%), correctly predicting 355 (+7.6%) more patients who developed cardiovascular disease compared to the established algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5380334
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53803342017-04-19 Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? Weng, Stephen F. Reps, Jenna Kai, Joe Garibaldi, Jonathan M. Qureshi, Nadeem PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Current approaches to predict cardiovascular risk fail to identify many people who would benefit from preventive treatment, while others receive unnecessary intervention. Machine-learning offers opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors. We assessed whether machine-learning can improve cardiovascular risk prediction. METHODS: Prospective cohort study using routine clinical data of 378,256 patients from UK family practices, free from cardiovascular disease at outset. Four machine-learning algorithms (random forest, logistic regression, gradient boosting machines, neural networks) were compared to an established algorithm (American College of Cardiology guidelines) to predict first cardiovascular event over 10-years. Predictive accuracy was assessed by area under the ‘receiver operating curve’ (AUC); and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) to predict 7.5% cardiovascular risk (threshold for initiating statins). FINDINGS: 24,970 incident cardiovascular events (6.6%) occurred. Compared to the established risk prediction algorithm (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.723–0.735), machine-learning algorithms improved prediction: random forest +1.7% (AUC 0.745, 95% CI 0.739–0.750), logistic regression +3.2% (AUC 0.760, 95% CI 0.755–0.766), gradient boosting +3.3% (AUC 0.761, 95% CI 0.755–0.766), neural networks +3.6% (AUC 0.764, 95% CI 0.759–0.769). The highest achieving (neural networks) algorithm predicted 4,998/7,404 cases (sensitivity 67.5%, PPV 18.4%) and 53,458/75,585 non-cases (specificity 70.7%, NPV 95.7%), correctly predicting 355 (+7.6%) more patients who developed cardiovascular disease compared to the established algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others. Public Library of Science 2017-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5380334/ /pubmed/28376093 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174944 Text en © 2017 Weng et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Weng, Stephen F.
Reps, Jenna
Kai, Joe
Garibaldi, Jonathan M.
Qureshi, Nadeem
Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title_full Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title_fullStr Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title_full_unstemmed Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title_short Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
title_sort can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174944
work_keys_str_mv AT wengstephenf canmachinelearningimprovecardiovascularriskpredictionusingroutineclinicaldata
AT repsjenna canmachinelearningimprovecardiovascularriskpredictionusingroutineclinicaldata
AT kaijoe canmachinelearningimprovecardiovascularriskpredictionusingroutineclinicaldata
AT garibaldijonathanm canmachinelearningimprovecardiovascularriskpredictionusingroutineclinicaldata
AT qureshinadeem canmachinelearningimprovecardiovascularriskpredictionusingroutineclinicaldata