MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322490977 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104479

Development and validation of echocardiography-based machine-learning models to predict mortality

2023· article· en· W4322490977 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Akshay Valsaraj, Sunil V. Kalmady, Vaibhav Sharma, Matthew Frost, Weijie Sun, Nariman Sepehrvand, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Cyril Equilbec, Jason R.B. Dyck, Todd J. Anderson, Harald Becher, Sarah Weeks, Jasper Tromp, Chung‐Lieh Hung, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Padma Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesMitacsAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineMachine learningCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207