Machine Learning to Predict 10-year Cardiovascular Mortality from the Electrocardiogram: Analysis of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III)
Kim, C. H.; Al-Kindi, S.; Tarabichi, Y.; Gohel, S.; Vyas, R.; Srinivasan, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe value of the electrocardiogram (ECG) for predicting long-term cardiovascular outcomes is not well defined. Machine learning methods are well suited for analysis of highly correlated data such as that from the ECG. MethodsUsing demographic, clinical, and 12-lead ECG data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), machine learning models were trained to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality in ambulatory U.S. adults. Predictive performance of each model was assessed using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under precision-recall curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, and specificity. These were compared to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE). Results7,067 study participants (mean age: 59.2 {+/-} 13.4 years, female: 52.5%, white: 73.9%, black: 23.3%) were included. At 10 years of follow up, 338 (4.8%) had died from cardiac causes. Compared to the PCE (AUROC: 0.668, AUPRC: 0.125, sensitivity: 0.492, specificity: 0.859), machine learning models only required demographic and ECG data to achieve comparable performance: logistic regression (AUROC: 0.754, AUPRC: 0.141, sensitivity: 0.747, specificity: 0.759), neural network (AUROC: 0.764, AUPRC: 0.149, sensitivity: 0.722, specificity: 0.787), and ensemble model (AUROC: 0.695, AUPRC: 0.166, sensitivity: 0.468, specificity: 0.912). Additional clinical data did not improve the predictive performance of machine learning models. In variable importance analysis, important ECG features clustered in inferior and lateral leads. ConclusionsMachine learning can be applied to demographic and ECG data to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality in ambulatory adults, with potentially important implications for primary prevention.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Social Networks and Cardiovascular Disease Events in the Jackson Heart Study 95%
- Age-stratified Prevalence and Relative Prognostic Significance of Traditional Atherosclerotic Risk Factors: A Report from the Nationwide Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Japan 94%
- Artificial intelligence of arterial Doppler waveforms to predict major adverse outcomes among patients evaluated for peripheral artery disease 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting long-term prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a prospective nested case-control analysis for county-level health services 95%
- Algorithm for Predicting Valvular Heart Disease from Heart Sounds in an Unselected Cohort 94%
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Survival in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using ECG Machine Learning for Detection of Cardiovascular Disease in African American Men and Women: the Jackson Heart Study 97%
- International Evaluation Of An Artificial Intelligence-Powered Ecg Model Detecting Occlusion Myocardial Infarction 96%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Dynamic Predictive Accuracy of Electrocardiographic Biomarkers of Sudden Cardiac Death within a Survival Framework: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study 95%
- Combining Genetic Proxies of Drug Targets and Time-to-event analyses From Longitudinal Observational Data To Identify Target Patient Populations 95%
- Heart Rate n-Variability (HRnV) and Its Application to Risk Stratification of Chest Pain Patients in the Emergency Department 95%
"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.