MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152604983 · doi:10.1161/circgen.120.003259

Prediction of Genotype Positivity in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Using Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3152604983 on OpenAlex
Lusha W. Liang, Michael A. Fifer, Kohei Hasegawa, Matthew J. Maurer, Muredach P. Reilly, Yuichi J. Shimada

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Genomic and Precision Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyReceiver operating characteristicMedicineInternal medicineGenotypeTest setRandom forestMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Genetic testing can determine family screening strategies and has prognostic and diagnostic value in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, it can also pose a significant psychosocial burden. Conventional scoring systems offer modest ability to predict genotype positivity. The aim of our study was to develop a novel prediction model for genotype positivity in patients with HCM by applying machine learning (ML) algorithms. Methods: We constructed 3 ML models using readily available clinical and cardiac imaging data of 102 patients from Columbia University with HCM who had undergone genetic testing (the training set). We validated model performance on 76 patients with HCM from Massachusetts General Hospital (the test set). Within the test set, we compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the ML models against the AUROCs generated by the Toronto HCM Genotype Score (the Toronto score) and Mayo HCM Genotype Predictor (the Mayo score) using the Delong test and net reclassification improvement. Results: Overall, 63 of the 178 patients (35%) were genotype positive. The random forest ML model developed in the training set demonstrated an AUROC of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85–0.99) in predicting genotype positivity in the test set, significantly outperforming the Toronto score (AUROC, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65–0.90], P =0.004, net reclassification improvement: P <0.001) and the Mayo score (AUROC, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67–0.92], P =0.01, net reclassification improvement: P =0.001). The gradient boosted decision tree ML model also achieved significant net reclassification improvement over the Toronto score ( P <0.001) and the Mayo score ( P =0.03), with an AUROC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75–0.99). Compared with the Toronto and Mayo scores, all 3 ML models had higher sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Conclusions: Our ML models demonstrated a superior ability to predict genotype positivity in patients with HCM compared with conventional scoring systems in an external validation test set.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.212 · 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