Development of an ensemble machine learning prognostic model to predict 60-day risk of major adverse cardiac events in adults with chest pain
Kennedy, C. J.; Mark, D. G.; Huang, J.; van der Laan, M. J.; Hubbard, A. E.; Reed, M. E.
Show abstract
BackgroundChest pain is the second leading reason for emergency department (ED) visits and is commonly identified as a leading driver of low-value health care. Accurate identification of patients at low risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) is important to improve resource allocation and reduce over-treatment. ObjectivesWe assessed machine learning (ML) methods and electronic health record (EHR) covariate collection for MACE prediction. We aimed to maximize the pool of low-risk patients that were accurately predicted to have less than 0.5% MACE risk and could be eligible for reduced testing ("rule-out" strategy). Population Studied116,764 adult patients presenting with chest pain in the ED between 2013 and 2015 and evaluated for potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 60-day MACE rate was 2%. Setting21 emergency departments within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system. Data analysis was performed May 2018 to August 2021. MethodsWe evaluated ML algorithms (lasso, splines, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, Bayesian additive regression trees) and SuperLearner stacked ensembling. We tuned ML hyperparameters through nested ensembling, and imputed missing values with generalized low-rank models (GLRM). Performance was benchmarked against individual biomarkers, validated clinical risk scores, decision trees, and logistic regression. We assessed clinical utility through net benefit analysis and explained the models through variable importance ranking and accumulated local effect plots. ResultsThe SuperLearner ensemble provided the best cross-validated discrimination with areas under the curve of 0.15 for precision-recall (PR-AUC) and 0.87 for receiver operating characteristic (ROC-AUC), and the best accuracy with an index of prediction accuracy of 0.07. The ensembles risk estimates were miscalibrated by 0.2 percentage points on average, and dominated the net benefit analysis at all examined thresholds. At a 0.5% threshold the ensemble model yielded 32 benefit-adjusted workups avoided per 100 patients, compared to 25 for logistic regression and 2-14 for clinical risk scores. The most important predictors were age, troponin, clinical risk scores, and electrocardiogram. GLRM achieved a 90% average reduction in reconstruction error compared to median-mode imputation. ConclusionCombining ML algorithms with a broad set of EHR covariates improved MACE risk prediction and would reduce over-treatment compared to simpler alternatives, while providing calibrated predictions and interpretability. Patients should receive targeted benefit in their care from thorough detection of nuanced health patterns via ML. O_QDThe omission of prediction from the major goals of basic medical science has impoverished the intellectual content of clinical work, since a modern clinicians main challenge in the care of patients is to make predictions. Alvan Feinstein, 1983 C_QD
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Implicit bias in Critical Care Data: Factors affecting sampling frequencies and missingness patterns of clinical and biological variables in ICU Patients 96%
- Development and Validation of ‘Patient Optimizer’ (POP) Algorithms for Predicting Surgical Risk with Machine Learning 95%
- OASIS+: leveraging machine learning to improve the prognostic accuracy of OASIS severity score for predicting in-hospital mortality 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting Ward Transfer Mortality with Machine Learning 94%
- Data-driven Discovery of Mathematical and Physical Relations in Oncology Data using Human-understandable Machine Learning 93%
- An Explainable Multi-Modal Neural Network Architecture for Predicting Epilepsy Comorbidities Based on Administrative Claims Data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Bayesian networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials 92%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 92%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the effects of data drift on the performance of machine learning models used in clinical sepsis prediction 94%
- Image and structured data analysis for prognostication of health outcomes in patients presenting to the Emergency Department during the COVID-19 pandemic 94%
- A Deep Learning Method to Detect Opioid Prescription and Opioid Use Disorder from Electronic Health Records 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.