MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387239246

Prediction of cardiovascular outcomes with machine learning techniques: application to the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study

2019· article· en· W4387239246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tai C. Chen, P. Brewster, Katherine R. Tuttle, Dworkin Ld, Wolfgang Henrich, Greco BA, Michael W. Steffes, Sheldon W. Tobe, K JAMERSON, Karol M. Pencina, Massaro Jm, D'Agostino Rb, C Gheldere De, TP Murphy, Cooper CJ, Shapiro JI

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoralCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineOceanographyGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tian Chen,1 Pamela Brewster,1 Katherine R Tuttle,2 Lance D Dworkin,1 William Henrich,3 Barbara A Greco,4 Michael Steffes,5 Sheldon Tobe,6 Kenneth Jamerson,7 Karol Pencina,8 Joseph M Massaro,8 Ralph B D’Agostino Sr,8 Donald E Cutlip,9 Timothy P Murphy,10 Christopher J Cooper,1 Joseph I Shapiro11 1University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA; 2Providence Health Care, University of Washington, Spokane, WA, USA; 3University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA; 4Baystate Health, Springfield, MA, USA; 5University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 6University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 7University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 8Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA; 9Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; 10Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; 11Marshall University, Huntington, WV, USA Background: Data derived from the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions (CORAL) study were analyzed in an effort to employ machine learning methods to predict the composite endpoint described in the original study. Methods: We identified 573 CORAL subjects with complete baseline data and the presence or absence of a composite endpoint for the study. These data were subjected to several models including a generalized linear (logistic-linear) model, support vector machine, decision tree, feed-forward neural network, and random forest, in an effort to attempt to predict the composite endpoint. The subjects were arbitrarily divided into training and testing subsets according to an 80%:20% distribution with various seeds. Prediction models were optimized within the CARET package of R. Results: The best performance of the different machine learning techniques was that of the random forest method which yielded a receiver operator curve (ROC) area of 68.1%±4.2% (mean ± SD) on the testing subset with ten different seed values used to separate training and testing subsets. The four most important variables in the random forest method were SBP, serum creatinine, glycosylated hemoglobin, and DBP. Each of these variables was also important in at least some of the other methods. The treatment assignment group was not consistently an important determinant in any of the models. Conclusion: Prediction of a composite cardiovascular outcome was difficult in the CORAL population, even when employing machine learning methods. Assignment to either the stenting or best medical therapy group did not serve as an important predictor of composite outcome. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00081731 Keywords: chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, glomerular filtration rate, hypertension, ischemic renal disease, renal artery stenosis

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207