Machine-learning to Improve Prediction of Mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction: An Assessment in the NCDR-Chest Pain-Myocardial Infarction Registry

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Introduction Accurate prediction of risk of death following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can guide the triage of care services and shared decision-making. Contemporary machine-learning may improve risk-prediction by identifying complex relationships between predictors and outcomes. Methods and Results We studied 993,905 patients in the American College of Cardiology Chest Pain-MI Registry hospitalized with AMI (mean age 64 ± 13 years, 34% women) between January 2011 and December 2016. We developed and validated three machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality and compared the performance characteristics with a logistic regression model. In an independent validation cohort, we compared logistic regression with lasso regularization (c-statistic, 0.891 [95% CI, 0.890-0.892]), gradient descent boosting (c-statistic, 0.902 [0.901-0.903]), and meta-classification that combined gradient descent boosting with a neural network (c-statistic, 0.904 [0.903-0.905]) with traditional logistic regression (c-statistic, 0.882 [0.881-0.883]). There were improvements in classification of individuals across the spectrum of patient risk with each of the three methods; the meta-classifier model – our best performing model - reclassified 20.9% of individuals deemed high-risk for mortality in logistic regression appropriately as low-to-moderate risk, and 8.2% of deemed low-risk to moderate-to-high risk based consistent with the actual event rates. Conclusions Machine-learning methods improved the prediction of in-hospital mortality for AMI compared with logistic regression. Machine learning methods enhance the utility of risk models developed using traditional statistical approaches through additional exploration of the relationship between variables and outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.