Electrocardiogram-based machine learning for risk stratification of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The importance of risk stratification in patients with chest pain extends beyond diagnosis and immediate treatment. This study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of electrocardiogram feature-based machine learning models to risk-stratify all-cause mortality in those with chest pain. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive, non-traumatic patients with chest pain. All-cause death was ascertained from multiple sources, including the CDC National Death Index registry. Six machine learning models were trained for survival analysis using 73 morphological electrocardiogram features (80% training with 10-fold cross-validation and 20% testing), followed by a variational Bayesian Gaussian mixture model to define distinct risk groups. The resulting classification performance was compared against the HEART score. RESULTS: The derivation cohort included 4015 patients (age 59 ± 16 years, 47% women). The mortality rate was 20.3% after a median follow-up period of 3.05 years (interquartile range 1.75-5.32). Extra Survival Trees outperformed other forecasting models, and the derived risk groups successfully classified patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (log-rank test statistic = 121.14, P < .001). This model outperformed the HEART score, reducing the rate of missed events by >90% with a negative predictive value and sensitivity of 93.4% and 85.9%, compared to 89.0% and 75.0%, respectively. In an independent external testing cohort (N = 3095, age 59 ± 15 years, 44% women, 30-day mortality 3.5%), patients in the moderate [odds ratio 3.62 (1.35-9.74)] and high [odds ratio 6.12 (2.38-15.75)] risk groups had significantly higher odds of mortality compared to those in the low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The externally validated machine learning-based model, exclusively utilizing features from the 12-lead electrocardiogram, outperformed the HEART score in stratifying the mortality risk of patients with acute chest pain. This may have the potential to impact the precision of care delivery and the allocation of resources to those at highest risk of adverse events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".