Dataset Information

Development and External Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Prognostication of Cardiovascular Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

We aim to explore the additional discriminative accuracy of a deep learning (DL) algorithm using repeated-measures data for identifying people at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), compared to Cox hazard regression.

Methods

Two CVD prediction models were developed from National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort (NHIS-HEALS): a Cox regression model and a DL model. Performance of each model was assessed in the internal and 2 external validation cohorts in Koreans (National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort; NHIS-NSC) and in Europeans (Rotterdam Study). A total of 412,030 adults in the NHIS-HEALS; 178,875 adults in the NHIS-NSC; and the 4,296 adults in Rotterdam Study were included.

Results

Mean ages was 52 years (46% women) and there were 25,777 events (6.3%) in NHIS-HEALS during the follow-up. In internal validation, the DL approach demonstrated a C-statistic of 0.896 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.907) in men and 0.921 (0.908-0.934) in women and improved reclassification compared with Cox regression (net reclassification index [NRI], 24.8% in men, 29.0% in women). In external validation with NHIS-NSC, DL demonstrated a C-statistic of 0.868 (0.860-0.876) in men and 0.889 (0.876-0.898) in women, and improved reclassification compared with Cox regression (NRI, 24.9% in men, 26.2% in women). In external validation applied to the Rotterdam Study, DL demonstrated a C-statistic of 0.860 (0.824-0.897) in men and 0.867 (0.830-0.903) in women, and improved reclassification compared with Cox regression (NRI, 36.9% in men, 31.8% in women).

Conclusions

A DL algorithm exhibited greater discriminative accuracy than Cox model approaches.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02931500.

SUBMITTER: Cho IJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6923233 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and External Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Prognostication of Cardiovascular Outcomes.

Cho In Jeong IJ Sung Ji Min JM Kim Hyeon Chang HC Lee Sang Eun SE Chae Myeong Hun MH Kavousi Maryam M Rueda-Ochoa Oscar L OL Ikram M Arfan MA Franco Oscar H OH Min James K JK Chang Hyuk Jae HJ

Korean circulation journal 20190819 1

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>We aim to explore the additional discriminative accuracy of a deep learning (DL) algorithm using repeated-measures data for identifying people at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), compared to Cox hazard regression.<h4>Methods</h4>Two CVD prediction models were developed from National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort (NHIS-HEALS): a Cox regression model and a DL model. Performance of each model was assessed in the internal and 2 external ...[more]

PMID: 31456363

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsEchocardiographic strain imaging reflects myocardial deformation and is a sensitive measure of cardiac function and wall-motion abnormalities. Deep learning (DL) algorithms could automate the interpretation of echocardiographic strain imaging.Methods and resultsWe developed and trained an automated DL-based algorithm for left ventricular (LV) strain measurements in an internal dataset. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was validated externally in (i) a real-world Taiwanese cohort of participants with and without heart failure (HF), (ii) a core-lab measured dataset from the multinational prevalence of microvascular dysfunction-HF and preserved ejection fraction (PROMIS-HFpEF) study, and regional strain in (iii) the HMC-QU-MI study of patients with suspected myocardial infarction. Outcomes included measures of agreement [bias, mean absolute difference (MAD), root-mean-squared-error (RMSE), and Pearson's correlation (R)] and area under the curve (AUC) to identify HF and regional wall-motion abnormalities. The DL workflow successfully analysed 3741 (89%) studies in the Taiwanese cohort, 176 (96%) in PROMIS-HFpEF, and 158 (98%) in HMC-QU-MI. Automated GLS showed good agreement with manual measurements (mean ± SD): -18.9 ± 4.5% vs. -18.2 ± 4.4%, respectively, bias 0.68 ± 2.52%, MAD 2.0 ± 1.67, RMSE = 2.61, R = 0.84 in the Taiwanese cohort; and -15.4 ± 4.1% vs. -15.9 ± 3.6%, respectively, bias -0.65 ± 2.71%, MAD 2.19 ± 1.71, RMSE = 2.78, R = 0.76 in PROMIS-HFpEF. In the Taiwanese cohort, automated GLS accurately identified patients with HF (AUC = 0.89 for total HF and AUC = 0.98 for HF with reduced ejection fraction). In HMC-QU-MI, automated regional strain identified regional wall-motion abnormalities with an average AUC = 0.80.ConclusionDL algorithms can interpret echocardiographic strain images with similar accuracy as conventional measurements. These results highlight the potential of DL algorithms to democratize the use of cardiac strain measurements and reduce time-spent and costs for echo labs globally.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a clinically useful model that estimates the 10 year risk of breast cancer related mortality in women (self-reported female sex) with breast cancer of any stage, comparing results from regression and machine learning approaches.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingQResearch primary care database in England, with individual level linkage to the national cancer registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics, and national mortality registers.Participants141 765 women aged 20 years and older with a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020.Main outcome measuresFour model building strategies comprising two regression (Cox proportional hazards and competing risks regression) and two machine learning (XGBoost and an artificial neural network) approaches. Internal-external cross validation was used for model evaluation. Random effects meta-analysis that pooled estimates of discrimination and calibration metrics, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis were used to assess model performance, transportability, and clinical utility.ResultsDuring a median 4.16 years (interquartile range 1.76-8.26) of follow-up, 21 688 breast cancer related deaths and 11 454 deaths from other causes occurred. Restricting to 10 years maximum follow-up from breast cancer diagnosis, 20 367 breast cancer related deaths occurred during a total of 688 564.81 person years. The crude breast cancer mortality rate was 295.79 per 10 000 person years (95% confidence interval 291.75 to 299.88). Predictors varied for each regression model, but both Cox and competing risks models included age at diagnosis, body mass index, smoking status, route to diagnosis, hormone receptor status, cancer stage, and grade of breast cancer. The Cox model's random effects meta-analysis pooled estimate for Harrell's C index was the highest of any model at 0.858 (95% confidence interval 0.853 to 0.864, and 95% prediction interval 0.843 to 0.873). It appeared acceptably calibrated on calibration plots. The competing risks regression model had good discrimination: pooled Harrell's C index 0.849 (0.839 to 0.859, and 0.821 to 0.876, and evidence of systematic miscalibration on summary metrics was lacking. The machine learning models had acceptable discrimination overall (Harrell's C index: XGBoost 0.821 (0.813 to 0.828, and 0.805 to 0.837); neural network 0.847 (0.835 to 0.858, and 0.816 to 0.878)), but had more complex patterns of miscalibration and more variable regional and stage specific performance. Decision curve analysis suggested that the Cox and competing risks regression models tested may have higher clinical utility than the two machine learning approaches.ConclusionIn women with breast cancer of any stage, using the predictors available in this dataset, regression based methods had better and more consistent performance compared with machine learning approaches and may be worthy of further evaluation for potential clinical use, such as for stratified follow-up.

Dataset Information

Development and External Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Prognostication of Cardiovascular Outcomes.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Development and External Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Prognostication of Cardiovascular Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets