Dataset Information

Application of machine learning to predict the occurrence of arrhythmia after acute myocardial infarction

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early identification of the occurrence of arrhythmia in patients with acute myocardial infarction plays an essential role in clinical decision-making. The present study attempted to use machine learning (ML) methods to build predictive models of arrhythmia after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods

A total of 2084 patients with acute myocardial infarction were enrolled in this study. (All data is available on Github: https://github.com/wangsuhuai/AMI-database1.git). The primary outcome is whether tachyarrhythmia occurred during admission containing atrial arrhythmia, ventricular arrhythmia, and supraventricular tachycardia. All data is randomly divided into a training set (80%) and an internal testing set (20%). Apply three machine learning algorithms: decision tree, random forest (RF), and artificial neural network (ANN) to learn the training set to build a model, then use the testing set to evaluate the prediction performance, and compare it with the model built by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk variable set.

Results

Three ML models predict the occurrence of tachyarrhythmias after AMI. After variable selection, the artificial neural network (ANN) model has reached the highest accuracy rate, which is better than the model constructed using the Grace variable set. After applying SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to make the model interpretable, the most important features are abnormal wall motion, lesion location, bundle branch block, age, and heart rate. Among them, RBBB (odds ratio [OR]: 4.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.42–7.02), ≥ 2 ventricular walls motion abnormal (OR: 3.26; 95% CI: 2.01–4.36) and right coronary artery occlusion (OR: 3.00; 95% CI: 1.98–4.56) are significant factors related to arrhythmia after AMI.

Conclusions

We used advanced machine learning methods to build prediction models for tachyarrhythmia after AMI for the first time (especially the ANN model that has the best performance). The current study can supplement the current AMI risk score, provide a reliable evaluation method for the clinic, and broaden the new horizons of ML and clinical research. Trial registration Clinical Trial Registry No.: ChiCTR2100041960.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01667-8.

SUBMITTER: Wang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8560220 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAccurate prediction of adverse outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can guide the triage of care services and shared decision-making, and novel methods hold promise for using existing data to generate additional insights.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether contemporary machine learning methods can facilitate risk prediction by including a larger number of variables and identifying complex relationships between predictors and outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used the American College of Cardiology Chest Pain-MI Registry to identify all AMI hospitalizations between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. Data analysis was performed from February 1, 2018, to October 22, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThree machine learning models were developed and validated to predict in-hospital mortality based on patient comorbidities, medical history, presentation characteristics, and initial laboratory values. Models were developed based on extreme gradient descent boosting (XGBoost, an interpretable model), a neural network, and a meta-classifier model. Their accuracy was compared against the current standard developed using a logistic regression model in a validation sample.ResultsA total of 755 402 patients (mean [SD] age, 65 [13] years; 495 202 [65.5%] male) were identified during the study period. In independent validation, 2 machine learning models, gradient descent boosting and meta-classifier (combination including inputs from gradient descent boosting and a neural network), marginally improved discrimination compared with logistic regression (C statistic, 0.90 for best performing machine learning model vs 0.89 for logistic regression). Nearly perfect calibration in independent validation data was found in the XGBoost (slope of predicted to observed events, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04) and the meta-classifier model (slope of predicted-to-observed events, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.02), with more precise classification across the risk spectrum. The XGBoost model reclassified 32 393 of 121 839 individuals (27%) and the meta-classifier model reclassified 30 836 of 121 839 individuals (25%) deemed at moderate to high risk for death in logistic regression as low risk, which were more consistent with the observed event rates.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study using a large national registry, none of the tested machine learning models were associated with substantive improvement in the discrimination of in-hospital mortality after AMI, limiting their clinical utility. However, compared with logistic regression, XGBoost and meta-classifier models, but not the neural network, offered improved resolution of risk for high-risk individuals.