Machine learning methodologies versus cardiovascular risk scores, in predicting disease risk

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) risk estimation scores in primary prevention has long been established. However, their performance still remains a matter of concern. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of using ML methodologies on CVD prediction, especially compared to established risk tool, the HellenicSCORE.MethodsData from the ATTICA prospective study (n = 2020 adults), enrolled during 2001–02 and followed-up in 2011–12 were used. Three different machine-learning classifiers (k-NN, random forest, and decision tree) were trained and evaluated against 10-year CVD incidence, in comparison with the HellenicSCORE tool (a calibration of the ESC SCORE). Training datasets, consisting from 16 variables to only 5 variables, were chosen, with or without bootstrapping, in an attempt to achieve the best overall performance for the machine learning classifiers.ResultsDepending on the classifier and the training dataset the outcome varied in efficiency but was comparable between the two methodological approaches. In particular, the HellenicSCORE showed accuracy 85%, specificity 20%, sensitivity 97%, positive predictive value 87%, and negative predictive value 58%, whereas for the machine learning methodologies, accuracy ranged from 65 to 84%, specificity from 46 to 56%, sensitivity from 67 to 89%, positive predictive value from 89 to 91%, and negative predictive value from 24 to 45%; random forest gave the best results, while the k-NN gave the poorest results.ConclusionsThe alternative approach of machine learning classification produced results comparable to that of risk prediction scores and, thus, it can be used as a method of CVD prediction, taking into consideration the advantages that machine learning methodologies may offer.

Cardiometabolic risk prediction algorithms for young people with psychosis: a systematic review and exploratory analysis

“…The literature search returned 7744 results after removing duplicates. We reviewed 362 full texts, of which 110 studies met inclusion criteria (28‐30, 33‐138). See Fig.…”

Machine Learning Applied to Diagnosis of Human Diseases: A Systematic Review

“…Heart and vascular diseases [180] Classification RF [96,97] Classification SVM [110,114] Classification ID3 [115] Classification KNN [126][127][128] Classification Naïve Bayes [142] Classification Bayesian Networks [148] Regression Linear regression [181,182] Classification DL [183] Regression Gradient boosting [184] Classification KNN + RF + DT Hepatic diseases [99] Classification SVM [113] Classification ID3 [185] Regression Linear regression [115] Classification KNN [129,185] Classification Naïve Bayes [186] Classification Ensemble Feature Selection [170] Classification Cross-sectional models Infectious diseases [78,82] Clustering K-means Clustering [85] Clustering DBSCAN [72,98,[101][102][103][104][105] Classification SVM [107,111] Classification ID3 [72,121,123] Classification KNN [133] Classification Naïve Bayes [71,[147][148][149]…”

Nonlinear Systems in Healthcare towards Intelligent Disease Prediction

“…Most of these risk-prediction tools are based on stochastic models, incorporating variables, based on cohort studies [40]. However, the alternative approaches of Nonlinear Systems in Healthcare towards Intelligent Disease Prediction DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88163 machine learning like k-nearest neighbors, random forests and decision tress also generate results quite comparable to the classical risk prediction scores [41], thus demonstrating its possibility as alternative methods of CVD risk prediction along with its added advantages.…”