MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139599754 · doi:10.11575/prism/38706

Develop a comprehensive hypertension prediction model and risk score in population-based data applying conventional statistical and machine learning approaches

2021· dissertation· en· W3139599754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePredictive modellingStatistical learningData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension is a common medical condition and is a significant risk factor for heart attack, stroke, kidney disease, and mortality. Developing a risk prediction model for hypertension incidence incorporating its risk factors can help identify high-risk individuals who should be targeted for healthy behavioral changes or medical treatment to prevent hypertension onset. This research aims to develop a robust hypertension prediction model for the general population. More specifically, we aimed to 1) conduct a comprehensive systematic review to identify risk factors and prediction models for hypertension incidence and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the current model’s predictive performance. 2) develop a risk prediction model for incident hypertension in a Canadian cohort using a traditional modeling approach. 3) develop machine learning algorithms to predict hypertension incidence and compare their predictive performance with a traditional statistical model. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and the grey literature for studies predicting the risk of hypertension among the general adult population. We identified 52 studies that presented 117 models, of which 75 were developed using traditional regression-based modeling and 42 using machine learning algorithms. No studies were from Canada where a hypertension prediction model was developed or validated. Meta-analysis showed the overall pooled C-statistics 0.75 [0.73 – 0.77] for the traditional regression-based models and 0.76 [0.72 – 0.79] for the machine learning-based models. The lack of a hypertension prediction model in a Canadian context motivated us to develop a new model. We used the data of 18,322 participants on 29 candidate variables from the large Alberta’s Tomorrow Project (ATP) to develop traditional Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diabetes, total physical activity time, and cardiovascular disease were used as significant risk factors in the model. Our model showed good discrimination (Harrel’s C-statistic 0.77) and calibration (Grønnesby and Borgan test, χ^2 statistic = 8.75, p = 0.07; calibration slope 1.006). A risk score table to estimate hypertension risks at 2-, 3-, 5-, and 6-year were derived from the model to favor the model’s clinical implementation and workability. Five machine learning algorithms were also developed to predict hypertension incidence: penalized regression Ridge, Lasso, Elastic Net (EN), random survival forest (RSF), and gradient boosting (GB). The performance of machine learning algorithms was observed, similar to the traditional Cox PH model. Average C-indexes were 0.78, 0.78, 0.78, 0.76, 0.76, for Ridge, Lasso, Elastic Net, RSF, GB, respectively. Important features associated with each machine learning algorithms were also presented. We developed a simple yet practical prediction model to estimate the risk of incident hypertension for the Canadian population that relies on readily available variables. Our results showed little predictive performance difference between machine learning algorithms and the traditional Cox PH model in predicting hypertension incidence. Our newly developed model may help clinicians, and the general population assess their risks of new-onset hypertension and facilitate discussions on preventing this risk more effectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207