Development and validation of a neural network-based survival model for mortality in ischemic heart disease
Holm, P. C.; Haue, A. D.; Westergaard, D.; Röder, T.; Banasik, K.; Tragante, V.; Christensen, A. H.; Thomas, L.; Nost, T. H.; Skogholt, A. H.; Iversen, K. K.; Pedersen, F.; Hofsten, D. E.; Pedersen, O. B.; Ostrowski, S. R.; Ullum, H.; Svendsen, M. N.; Gjodsbol, I. M.; Gudnason, T.; Gudbjartsson, D.; Helgadottir, A.; Hveem, K.; Kober, L.; Holm, H.; Stefansson, K.; Brunak, S.; Bundgaard, H.
Show abstract
BackgroundCurrent risk prediction models for ischemic heart disease (IHD) use a limited set of established risk factors and are based on classical statistical techniques. Using machine-learning techniques and including a broader panel of features from electronic health records (EHRs) may improve prognostication. ObjectivesDeveloping and externally validating a neural network-based time-to-event model (PMHnet) for prediction of all-cause mortality in IHD. MethodsWe included 39,746 patients (training: 34,746, test: 5,000) with IHD from the Eastern Danish Heart Registry, who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) between 2006-2016. Clinical and genetic features were extracted from national registries, EHRs, and biobanks. The feature-selection process identified 584 features, including prior diagnosis and procedure codes, laboratory test results, and clinical measurements. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent AUC (tdAUC) and the Brier score. PMHnet was benchmarked against GRACE Risk Score 2.0 (GRACE2.0), and externally validated using data from Iceland (n=8,287). Feature importance and model explainability were assessed using SHAP analysis. FindingsOn the test set, the tdAUC was 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90, case count, cc=196) at six months, 0.88(0.86-0.90, cc=261) at one year, 0.84(0.82-0.86, cc=395) at three years, and 0.82(0.80-0.84, cc=763) at five years. On the same data, GRACE2.0 had a lower performance: 0.77 (0.73-0.80) at six months, 0.77(0.74-0.80) at one year, and 0.73(0.70-0.75) at three years. PMHnet showed similar performance in the Icelandic data. ConclusionPMHnet significantly improved survival prediction in patients with IHD compared to GRACE2.0. Our findings support the use of deep phenotypic data as precision medicine tools in modern healthcare systems.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Multinational Validation of an Ensemble Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting and Predicting Structural Heart Disease Using Noisy Single-lead Electrocardiograms 95%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 94%
- Multimodal deep learning enhances diagnostic precision in left ventricular hypertrophy 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biomarker panels for improved risk prediction and enhanced biological insights in patients with atrial fibrillation 96%
- Deep representation learning for clustering longitudinal survival data from electronic health records 94%
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk score-stratified screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cohort Design and Natural Language Processing to Reduce Bias in Electronic Health Records Research: The Community Care Cohort Project 96%
- Identification of Digital Twins to Guide Interpretable AI for Diagnosis and Prognosis in Heart Failure 94%
- Novel clinical subphenotypes in COVID-19: derivation, validation, prediction, temporal patterns, and interaction with social determinants of health 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Augmenting clinical risk prediction of cardiovascular disease through protein and epigenetic biomarkers 95%
- Dynamic Importance of Genomic and Clinical Risk for Coronary Artery Disease Over the Life Course 95%
- A Polygenic Risk Score for Coronary Artery Disease Improves the Prediction of Early-Onset Myocardial Infarction and Mortality in Men 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.