Cargando…

Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors

Researchers routinely evaluate novel biomarkers for incorporation into clinical risk models, weighing tradeoffs between cost, availability, and ease of deployment. For risk assessment in population health initiatives, ideal inputs would be those already available for most patients. We hypothesized t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Truslow, James G., Goto, Shinichi, Homilius, Max, Mow, Christopher, Higgins, John M., MacRae, Calum A., Deo, Rahul C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35477255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008007
_version_ 1784729798423085056
author Truslow, James G.
Goto, Shinichi
Homilius, Max
Mow, Christopher
Higgins, John M.
MacRae, Calum A.
Deo, Rahul C.
author_facet Truslow, James G.
Goto, Shinichi
Homilius, Max
Mow, Christopher
Higgins, John M.
MacRae, Calum A.
Deo, Rahul C.
author_sort Truslow, James G.
collection PubMed
description Researchers routinely evaluate novel biomarkers for incorporation into clinical risk models, weighing tradeoffs between cost, availability, and ease of deployment. For risk assessment in population health initiatives, ideal inputs would be those already available for most patients. We hypothesized that common hematologic markers (eg, hematocrit), available in an outpatient complete blood count without differential, would be useful to develop risk models for cardiovascular events. METHODS: We developed Cox proportional hazards models for predicting heart attack, ischemic stroke, heart failure hospitalization, revascularization, and all-cause mortality. For predictors, we used 10 hematologic indices (eg, hematocrit) from routine laboratory measurements, collected March 2016 to May 2017 along with demographic data and diagnostic codes. As outcomes, we used neural network-based automated event adjudication of 1 028 294 discharge summaries. We trained models on 23 238 patients from one hospital in Boston and evaluated them on 29 671 patients from a second one. We assessed calibration using Brier score and discrimination using Harrell’s concordance index. In addition, to determine the utility of high-dimensional interactions, we compared our proportional hazards models to random survival forest models. RESULTS: Event rates in our cohort ranged from 0.0067 to 0.075 per person-year. Models using only hematology indices had concordance index ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 on an external validation set and showed the best discrimination when predicting heart failure (0.80 [95% CI, 0.79–0.82]) and all-cause mortality (0.78 [0.77–0.80]). Compared with models trained only on demographic data and diagnostic codes, models that also used hematology indices had better discrimination and calibration. The concordance index of the resulting models ranged from 0.75 to 0.85 and the improvement in concordance index ranged up to 0.072. Random survival forests had minimal improvement over proportional hazards models. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that low-cost, ubiquitous inputs, if biologically informative, can provide population-level readouts of risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9208816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92088162022-06-23 Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors Truslow, James G. Goto, Shinichi Homilius, Max Mow, Christopher Higgins, John M. MacRae, Calum A. Deo, Rahul C. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Original Articles Researchers routinely evaluate novel biomarkers for incorporation into clinical risk models, weighing tradeoffs between cost, availability, and ease of deployment. For risk assessment in population health initiatives, ideal inputs would be those already available for most patients. We hypothesized that common hematologic markers (eg, hematocrit), available in an outpatient complete blood count without differential, would be useful to develop risk models for cardiovascular events. METHODS: We developed Cox proportional hazards models for predicting heart attack, ischemic stroke, heart failure hospitalization, revascularization, and all-cause mortality. For predictors, we used 10 hematologic indices (eg, hematocrit) from routine laboratory measurements, collected March 2016 to May 2017 along with demographic data and diagnostic codes. As outcomes, we used neural network-based automated event adjudication of 1 028 294 discharge summaries. We trained models on 23 238 patients from one hospital in Boston and evaluated them on 29 671 patients from a second one. We assessed calibration using Brier score and discrimination using Harrell’s concordance index. In addition, to determine the utility of high-dimensional interactions, we compared our proportional hazards models to random survival forest models. RESULTS: Event rates in our cohort ranged from 0.0067 to 0.075 per person-year. Models using only hematology indices had concordance index ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 on an external validation set and showed the best discrimination when predicting heart failure (0.80 [95% CI, 0.79–0.82]) and all-cause mortality (0.78 [0.77–0.80]). Compared with models trained only on demographic data and diagnostic codes, models that also used hematology indices had better discrimination and calibration. The concordance index of the resulting models ranged from 0.75 to 0.85 and the improvement in concordance index ranged up to 0.072. Random survival forests had minimal improvement over proportional hazards models. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that low-cost, ubiquitous inputs, if biologically informative, can provide population-level readouts of risk. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9208816/ /pubmed/35477255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008007 Text en © 2022 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Truslow, James G.
Goto, Shinichi
Homilius, Max
Mow, Christopher
Higgins, John M.
MacRae, Calum A.
Deo, Rahul C.
Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title_full Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title_fullStr Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title_full_unstemmed Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title_short Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors
title_sort cardiovascular risk assessment using artificial intelligence-enabled event adjudication and hematologic predictors
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35477255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008007
work_keys_str_mv AT truslowjamesg cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT gotoshinichi cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT homiliusmax cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT mowchristopher cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT higginsjohnm cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT macraecaluma cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors
AT deorahulc cardiovascularriskassessmentusingartificialintelligenceenabledeventadjudicationandhematologicpredictors