MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200031888 · doi:10.2196/29225

Machine Learning Methodologies for Prediction of Rhythm-Control Strategy in Patients Diagnosed With Atrial Fibrillation: Observational, Retrospective, Case-Control Study

2021· article· en· W4200031888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rachel Kim, S. Simon, Brett Powers, Amneet Sandhu, José M. Sánchez, Ryan T. Borne, Alexis Z. Tumolo, Matthew M. Zipse, John J. West, Ryan G. Aleong, Wendy S. Tzou, Michael A. Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsInterpretabilityAtrial fibrillationMachine learningRhythmReferralObservational studyArtificial intelligenceMedicineClinical decision support systemComputer scienceDecision support systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The identification of an appropriate rhythm management strategy for patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a major challenge for providers. Although clinical trials have identified subgroups of patients in whom a rate- or rhythm-control strategy might be indicated to improve outcomes, the wide range of presentations and risk factors among patients presenting with AF makes such approaches challenging. The strength of electronic health records is the ability to build in logic to guide management decisions, such that the system can automatically identify patients in whom a rhythm-control strategy is more likely and can promote efficient referrals to specialists. However, like any clinical decision support tool, there is a balance between interpretability and accurate prediction. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to create an electronic health record-based prediction tool to guide patient referral to specialists for rhythm-control management by comparing different machine learning algorithms. METHODS: We compared machine learning models of increasing complexity and used up to 50,845 variables to predict the rhythm-control strategy in 42,022 patients within the University of Colorado Health system at the time of AF diagnosis. Models were evaluated on the basis of their classification accuracy, defined by the F1 score and other metrics, and interpretability, captured by inspection of the relative importance of each predictor. RESULTS: We found that age was by far the strongest single predictor of a rhythm-control strategy but that greater accuracy could be achieved with more complex models incorporating neural networks and more predictors for each participant. We determined that the impact of better prediction models was notable primarily in the rate of inappropriate referrals for rhythm-control, in which more complex models provided an average of 20% fewer inappropriate referrals than simpler, more interpretable models. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that any health care system seeking to incorporate algorithms to guide rhythm management for patients with AF will need to address this trade-off between prediction accuracy and model interpretability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207