RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Development of an ensemble machine learning prognostic model to predict 60-day risk of major adverse cardiac events in adults with chest pain
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.08.21252615
DO 10.1101/2021.03.08.21252615
A1 Kennedy, Chris J.
A1 Mark, Dustin G.
A1 Huang, Jie
A1 van der Laan, Mark J.
A1 Hubbard, Alan E.
A1 Reed, Mary E.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/13/2021.03.08.21252615.abstract
AB Background Chest pain is the second leading reason for emergency department (ED) visits and is commonly identified as a leading driver of low-value health care. Workup protocols in patients with chest pain are designed to diagnose the potential for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) is important to improve resource allocation and reduce over-treatment.Objectives We sought to assess 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 are accurately predicted to have less than 0.5% MACE risk and may be eligible for reduced testing.Population Studied 116,764 adult patients presenting with chest pain in the ED and evaluated for potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 60-day MACE rate was 1.9%.Methods We 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). We benchmarked performance to key biomarkers, validated clinical risk scores, decision trees, and logistic regression. We explained the models through variable importance ranking and accumulated local effect visualization.Results The best discrimination (area under the precision-recall [PR-AUC] and receiver operating characteristic [ROC-AUC] curves) was provided by SuperLearner ensembling (0.148, 0.867), followed by random forest (0.146, 0.862). Logistic regression (0.120, 0.842) and decision trees (0.094, 0.805) exhibited worse discrimination, as did risk scores [HEART (0.064, 0.765), EDACS (0.046, 0.733)] and biomarkers [serum troponin level (0.064, 0.708), electrocardiography (0.047, 0.686)]. The ensemble’s risk estimates were miscalibrated by 0.2 percentage points. The ensemble accurately identified 50% of patients to be below a 0.5% 60-day MACE risk threshold. The most important predictors were age, peak troponin, HEART score, EDACS score, and electrocardiogram. GLRM imputation achieved 90% reduction in root mean-squared error compared to median-mode imputation.Conclusion Use of ML algorithms, combined with broad predictor sets, improved MACE risk prediction compared to simpler alternatives, while providing calibrated predictions and interpretability. Standard risk scores may neglect important health information available in other characteristics and combined in nuanced ways via ML.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by a Kaiser Permanente Division of Research Delivery Science Research Grant.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Approved by the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research IRB.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset contains protected health information and is not shareable.