MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396777326 · doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuae036.062

Machine learning with electrocardiograms to optimize mortality risk stratification in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome

2024· article· en· W4396777326 on OpenAlexaff
Zeineb Bouzid, Ervin Sejdić, Christian Martin‐Gill, Ziad Faramand, Mohammad Alrawashdeh, Tanmay Gokhale, Nathan T. Riek, Richard E. Gregg, Jessica K. Zègre‐Hemsey, Murat Akçakaya, Samir Saba, Clifton W. Callaway, Salah S. Al‐Zaiti

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk stratificationAcute coronary syndromeMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyStratification (seeds)Myocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). Background The importance of risk stratification in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) extends beyond diagnosis and immediate treatment. It influences the precision of care delivery and the allocation of resources to those at highest risk of adverse events. Purpose We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of electrocardiogram (ECG) feature-based machine learning models to risk-stratify long-term mortality in those with suspected ACS. Methods This was a multicenter prospective observational cohort study of consecutive, non-traumatic patients evaluated at the emergency department for suspected ACS. The derivation cohort included 4,015 patients from a University Medical Center (age 59±16 years, 47% women, 80% training with 10-fold cross-validation and 20% testing). Ascertainment of all-cause death was based on numerous data sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index registry. We trained six machine learning methods for survival analysis using 73 morphological ECG features from presenting prehospital 10-second 12-lead ECGs. We used predicted risk scores in a variational Bayesian Gaussian mixture model to define three risk groups corresponding to low, moderate, and high-risk and compared the resulting classification performance against the HEART score. The external testing cohort included 3,095 patients from a University (age 59±15 years, 44% women). Results The mortality rate was 20.3% in the derivation cohort after an average follow-up period of 3.53 years (IQR 1.75 - 5.32). Extra Survival Trees outperformed other forecasting models during cross-validation. In the internal testing cohort, the derived risk groups were significantly predictive of survival (Kaplan-Meier log-rank test statistic = 121.14, p<0.001), outperforming the classification performance using the HEART score (Figure 1). Our machine learning-based risk stratification model detected >90% of death events missed by low-risk HEART score (Figure 2). Ruling-out the low-risk group, it achieved a negative predictive value of 93.4% with a sensitivity of 85.9% (compared to 89.0% and 75.0%, respectively, for the HEART score). This classification performance generalized well to our external testing cohort. Compared to those in the low-risk group, patients at moderate (OR = 3.62 [1.35-9.74]) and high (OR = 6.12 [2.38-15.75]) risk had significantly higher odds of 30-day cardiovascular death (n=109, 3.5%). Conclusions Using only features from the 10-second 12-lead ECG, we derived and externally validated a machine learning model that stratifies the mortality risk of patients during long-term follow up. This model outperformed current standard of care based on the HEART score. Future work should validate the potential of this decision-support tool in influencing treatment plans and resource allocation.Figure 1.Clustering performanceFigure 2.Sankey diagram

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 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular CareSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207