Prediction of cardiac death after adenosine myocardial perfusion SPECT based on machine learning.
Cardiac death
data visualization
feature selection
machine learning
risk model
Journal
Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-6551
Titre abrégé: J Nucl Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9423534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
22
09
2017
accepted:
19
02
2018
pubmed:
16
3
2018
medline:
21
10
2020
entrez:
16
3
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We developed machine-learning (ML) models to estimate a patient's risk of cardiac death based on adenosine myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and associated clinical data, and compared their performance to baseline logistic regression (LR). We demonstrated an approach to visually convey the reasoning behind a patient's risk to provide insight to clinicians beyond that of a "black box." We trained multiple models using 122 potential clinical predictors (features) for 8321 patients, including 551 cases of subsequent cardiac death. Accuracy was measured by area under the ROC curve (AUC), computed within a cross-validation framework. We developed a method to display the model's rationale to facilitate clinical interpretation. The baseline LR (AUC = 0.76; 14 features) was outperformed by all other methods. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model (AUC = 0.77; p = .045; 6 features) required the fewest features. A support vector machine (SVM) model (AUC = 0.83; p < .0001; 49 features) provided the highest accuracy. LASSO outperformed LR in both accuracy and simplicity (number of features), with SVM yielding best AUC for prediction of cardiac death in patients undergoing MPS. Combined with presenting the reasoning behind the risk scores, our results suggest that ML can be more effective than LR for this application.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We developed machine-learning (ML) models to estimate a patient's risk of cardiac death based on adenosine myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) and associated clinical data, and compared their performance to baseline logistic regression (LR). We demonstrated an approach to visually convey the reasoning behind a patient's risk to provide insight to clinicians beyond that of a "black box."
METHODS
We trained multiple models using 122 potential clinical predictors (features) for 8321 patients, including 551 cases of subsequent cardiac death. Accuracy was measured by area under the ROC curve (AUC), computed within a cross-validation framework. We developed a method to display the model's rationale to facilitate clinical interpretation.
RESULTS
The baseline LR (AUC = 0.76; 14 features) was outperformed by all other methods. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) model (AUC = 0.77; p = .045; 6 features) required the fewest features. A support vector machine (SVM) model (AUC = 0.83; p < .0001; 49 features) provided the highest accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
LASSO outperformed LR in both accuracy and simplicity (number of features), with SVM yielding best AUC for prediction of cardiac death in patients undergoing MPS. Combined with presenting the reasoning behind the risk scores, our results suggest that ML can be more effective than LR for this application.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29542015
doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1250-7
pii: 10.1007/s12350-018-1250-7
pmc: PMC6138585
mid: NIHMS944988
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1746-1754Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL089765
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL122484
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Aug 15;80(4):426-33
pubmed: 9285653
Circ J. 2012;76(1):168-75
pubmed: 22104035
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Nov 1;26(5):1202-8
pubmed: 7594033
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jan 21;43(2):200-8
pubmed: 14736438
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Nov 1;22(5):1455-64
pubmed: 8227805
IEEE Signal Process Mag. 2010 Jul;27(4):25-38
pubmed: 25382956
Circulation. 2003 Sep 16;108(11):1404-18
pubmed: 12975245
Circulation. 2003 Jun 17;107(23):2900-7
pubmed: 12771008
Circulation. 1998 Feb 17;97(6):535-43
pubmed: 9494023
Am J Public Health. 1989 Mar;79(3):340-9
pubmed: 2916724
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Apr 2;41(7):1125-33
pubmed: 12679212
J Stat Softw. 2012 Sep;50(11):1-23
pubmed: 25317082
J Nucl Med. 2013 Apr;54(4):549-55
pubmed: 23482666
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002 Dec;21(12):1552-63
pubmed: 12588039
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Mar 12;61(10):1054-65
pubmed: 23473411
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2008 Mar;1(2):156-63
pubmed: 19356422
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132