Predicting Cardiovascular Risk Using Social Media Data: Performance Evaluation of Machine-Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) predictive models have limitations; thus, efforts are underway to improve the discriminatory power of ASCVD models. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the discriminatory power of social media posts to predict the 10-year risk for ASCVD as compared to that of pooled cohort risk equations (PCEs). METHODS: We consented patients receiving care in an urban academic emergency department to share access to their Facebook posts and electronic medical records (EMRs). We retrieved Facebook status updates up to 5 years prior to study enrollment for all consenting patients. We identified patients (N=181) without a prior history of coronary heart disease, an ASCVD score in their EMR, and more than 200 words in their Facebook posts. Using Facebook posts from these patients, we applied a machine-learning model to predict 10-year ASCVD risk scores. Using a machine-learning model and a psycholinguistic dictionary, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, we evaluated if language from posts alone could predict differences in risk scores and the association of certain words with risk categories, respectively. RESULTS: The machine-learning model predicted the 10-year ASCVD risk scores for the categories <5%, 5%-7.4%, 7.5%-9.9%, and ≥10% with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.78, 0.57, 0.72, and 0.61, respectively. The machine-learning model distinguished between low risk (<10%) and high risk (>10%) with an AUC of 0.69. Additionally, the machine-learning model predicted the ASCVD risk score with Pearson r=0.26. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, patients with higher ASCVD scores were more likely to use words associated with sadness (r=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Language used on social media can provide insights about an individual's ASCVD risk and inform approaches to risk modification.
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 | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".