Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Event Adjudication and Hematologic Predictors

Author:

Truslow James G.1,Goto Shinichi12ORCID,Homilius Max2ORCID,Mow Christopher34,Higgins John M.356,MacRae Calum A.12ORCID,Deo Rahul C.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. One Brave Idea and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA (J.G.T., S.G., M.H., C.A.M., R.C.D.).

2. Department of Medicine (S.G., M.H., C.A.M., R.C.D.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

3. Center for Systems Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital (C.M., J.M.H.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

4. Partners Healthcare Enterprise Research Information Systems, Boston, MA (C.M.).

5. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital (J.M.H.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

6. Department of Systems Biology (J.M.H.), Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Abstract

Background: Researchers routinely evaluate novel biomarkers for incorporation into clinical risk models, weighing tradeoffs between cost, availability, and ease of deployment. For risk assessment in population health initiatives, ideal inputs would be those already available for most patients. We hypothesized that common hematologic markers (eg, hematocrit), available in an outpatient complete blood count without differential, would be useful to develop risk models for cardiovascular events. Methods: We developed Cox proportional hazards models for predicting heart attack, ischemic stroke, heart failure hospitalization, revascularization, and all-cause mortality. For predictors, we used 10 hematologic indices (eg, hematocrit) from routine laboratory measurements, collected March 2016 to May 2017 along with demographic data and diagnostic codes. As outcomes, we used neural network-based automated event adjudication of 1 028 294 discharge summaries. We trained models on 23 238 patients from one hospital in Boston and evaluated them on 29 671 patients from a second one. We assessed calibration using Brier score and discrimination using Harrell’s concordance index. In addition, to determine the utility of high-dimensional interactions, we compared our proportional hazards models to random survival forest models. Results: Event rates in our cohort ranged from 0.0067 to 0.075 per person-year. Models using only hematology indices had concordance index ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 on an external validation set and showed the best discrimination when predicting heart failure (0.80 [95% CI, 0.79–0.82]) and all-cause mortality (0.78 [0.77–0.80]). Compared with models trained only on demographic data and diagnostic codes, models that also used hematology indices had better discrimination and calibration. The concordance index of the resulting models ranged from 0.75 to 0.85 and the improvement in concordance index ranged up to 0.072. Random survival forests had minimal improvement over proportional hazards models. Conclusions: We conclude that low-cost, ubiquitous inputs, if biologically informative, can provide population-level readouts of risk.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3