MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210371455 · doi:10.2196/30483

Disease Progression of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Modeling Using Machine Learning

2022· article· en· W4210371455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matej Pičulin, Tim Smole, Bojan Žunkovič, Enja Kokalj, Marko Robnik‐Šikonja, Matjaž Kukar, Dimitrios I. Fotiadis, Vasileios C. Pezoulas, Nikolaos S. Tachos, Fausto Barlocco, Francesco Mazzarotto, Dejana Popović, Lars S. Maier, Lazar Velicki, Iacopo Olivotto, Guy A. MacGowan, Djordje G. Jakovljević, Nenad Filipović, Zoran Bosnić

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsHypertrophic cardiomyopathyMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyMachine learningEjection fractionHeart diseaseCardiomyopathySudden cardiac deathHeart failureArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cardiovascular disorders in general are responsible for 30% of deaths worldwide. Among them, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a genetic cardiac disease that is present in about 1 of 500 young adults and can cause sudden cardiac death (SCD). Objective Although the current state-of-the-art methods model the risk of SCD for patients, to the best of our knowledge, no methods are available for modeling the patient's clinical status up to 10 years ahead. In this paper, we propose a novel machine learning (ML)-based tool for predicting disease progression for patients diagnosed with HCM in terms of adverse remodeling of the heart during a 10-year period. Methods The method consisted of 6 predictive regression models that independently predict future values of 6 clinical characteristics: left atrial size, left atrial volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association functional classification, left ventricular internal diastolic diameter, and left ventricular internal systolic diameter. We supplemented each prediction with the explanation that is generated using the Shapley additive explanation method. Results The final experiments showed that predictive error is lower on 5 of the 6 constructed models in comparison to experts (on average, by 0.34) or a consortium of experts (on average, by 0.22). The experiments revealed that semisupervised learning and the artificial data from virtual patients help improve predictive accuracies. The best-performing random forest model improved R2 from 0.3 to 0.6. Conclusions By engaging medical experts to provide interpretation and validation of the results, we determined the models' favorable performance compared to the performance of experts for 5 of 6 targets.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207