Machine learning methodologies versus cardiovascular risk scores, in predicting disease risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk estimation scores in primary prevention has long been established. However, their performance still remains a matter of concern. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of using ML methodologies on CVD prediction, especially compared to established risk tool, the HellenicSCORE. METHODS: Data from the ATTICA prospective study (n = 2020 adults), enrolled during 2001-02 and followed-up in 2011-12 were used. Three different machine-learning classifiers (k-NN, random forest, and decision tree) were trained and evaluated against 10-year CVD incidence, in comparison with the HellenicSCORE tool (a calibration of the ESC SCORE). Training datasets, consisting from 16 variables to only 5 variables, were chosen, with or without bootstrapping, in an attempt to achieve the best overall performance for the machine learning classifiers. RESULTS: Depending on the classifier and the training dataset the outcome varied in efficiency but was comparable between the two methodological approaches. In particular, the HellenicSCORE showed accuracy 85%, specificity 20%, sensitivity 97%, positive predictive value 87%, and negative predictive value 58%, whereas for the machine learning methodologies, accuracy ranged from 65 to 84%, specificity from 46 to 56%, sensitivity from 67 to 89%, positive predictive value from 89 to 91%, and negative predictive value from 24 to 45%; random forest gave the best results, while the k-NN gave the poorest results. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative approach of machine learning classification produced results comparable to that of risk prediction scores and, thus, it can be used as a method of CVD prediction, taking into consideration the advantages that machine learning methodologies may offer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".