Development and validation of echocardiography-based machine-learning models to predict mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography (echo) based machine learning (ML) models may be useful in identifying patients at high-risk of all-cause mortality. METHODS: We developed ML models (ResNet deep learning using echo videos and CatBoost gradient boosting using echo measurements) to predict 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year mortality. Models were trained on the Mackay dataset, Taiwan (6083 echos, 3626 patients) and validated in the Alberta HEART dataset, Canada (997 echos, 595 patients). We examined the performance of the models overall, and in subgroups (healthy controls, at risk of heart failure (HF), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). We compared the models' performance to the MAGGIC risk score, and examined the correlation between the models' predicted probability of death and baseline quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). FINDINGS: Mortality rates at 1-, 3- and 5-years were 14.9%, 28.6%, and 42.5% in the Mackay cohort, and 3.0%, 10.3%, and 18.7%, in the Alberta HEART cohort. The ResNet and CatBoost models achieved area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) between 85% and 92% in internal validation. In external validation, the AUROCs for the ResNet (82%, 82%, and 78%) were significantly better than CatBoost (78%, 73%, and 75%), for 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality prediction respectively, with better or comparable performance to the MAGGIC score. ResNet models predicted higher probability of death in the HFpEF and HFrEF (30%-50%) subgroups than in controls and at risk patients (5%-20%). The predicted probabilities of death correlated with KCCQ scores (all p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Echo-based ML models to predict mortality had good internal and external validity, were generalizable, correlated with patients' quality of life, and are comparable to an established HF risk score. These models can be leveraged for automated risk stratification at point-of-care. FUNDING: Funding for Alberta HEART was provided by an Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions Interdisciplinary Team Grant no. AHFMRITG 200801018. P.K. holds a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Sex and Gender Science Chair and a Heart & Stroke Foundation Chair in Cardiovascular Research. A.V. and V.S. received funding from the Mitacs Globalink Research Internship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".