Do positive psychosocial factors contribute to the prediction of coronary artery disease? A UK Biobank–based machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Most prediction models for coronary artery disease (CAD) compile biomedical and behavioural risk factors using linear multivariate models. This study explores the potential of integrating positive psychosocial factors (PPFs), including happiness, satisfaction with life, and social support, into conventional and machine learning-based CAD-prediction models. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included UK Biobank (UKB) participants without CAD at baseline. First, we estimated associations of individual PPFs with subsequent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and chronic ischaemic heart disease (CIHD) using logistic regression. Then, we compared the performances of logistic regression and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) prediction models when adding PPFs as predictors to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS). Based on a sample size between 160 226 and 441 419 of UKB participants, happiness, satisfaction with health and life, and participation in social activities were linked to lower AMI and CIHD risk (all P-for-trend ≤ 0.04), while social support was not. In a validation sample, adding PPFs to the FRS using logistic regression and XGBoost prediction models improved neither AMI [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) change: 0.02 and 0.90%, respectively] nor CIHD (AUC change: -1.10 and -0.88%, respectively) prediction. CONCLUSION: Positive psychosocial factors were individually linked to CAD risk, in line with previous studies, and as reflected by the new European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention. However, including available PPFs in CAD-prediction models did not improve prediction compared with the FRS alone. Future studies should explore whether PPFs may act as CAD-risk modifiers, especially if the individual's risk is close to a decision threshold.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".