Machine learning model for predicting late recurrence of atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation
Résumé fourni par la source
Late recurrence of atrial fibrillation (LRAF) in the first year following catheter ablation is a common and significant clinical problem. Our study aimed to create a machine-learning model for predicting arrhythmic recurrence within the first year since catheter ablation. The study comprised 201 consecutive patients (age: 61.8 ± 8.1; women 36%) with paroxysmal, persistent, and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent cryoballoon (61%) and radiofrequency ablation (39%). Five different supervised machine-learning models (decision tree, logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, support vector machines) were developed for predicting AF recurrence. Further, SHapley Additive exPlanations were derived to explain the predictions using 82 parameters based on clinical, laboratory, and procedural variables collected from each patient. The models were trained and validated using a stratified fivefold cross-validation, and a feature selection was performed with permutation importance. The XGBoost model with 12 variables showed the best performance on the testing cohort, with the highest AUC of 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.7395, 0.7653]. The machine-learned model, based on the easily available 12 clinical and laboratory variables, predicted LRAF with good performance, which may provide a valuable tool in clinical practice for better patient selection and personalized AF strategy following the procedure.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Machine learning model for predicting late recurrence of atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation
- Date Crossref
- 14/09/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.