Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis
2020
Overview
Traditional statistical models allow population based inferences and comparisons. Machine learning (ML) explores datasets to develop algorithms that do not assume linear relationships between variables and outcomes and that may account for higher order interactions to make individualized outcome predictions. To evaluate the performance of machine learning models compared to traditional risk stratification methods for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that are treated with antithrombotic therapy. Data on 24,178 ACS patients were pooled from four randomized controlled trials. The super learner ensemble algorithm selected weights for 23 machine learning models and was compared to traditional models. The efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The safety endpoint was a composite of TIMI major and minor bleeding or bleeding requiring medical attention. For the MACE outcome, the super learner model produced a higher c-statistic (0.734) than logistic regression (0.714), the TIMI risk score (0.489), and a new cardiovascular risk score developed in the dataset (0.644). For the bleeding outcome, the super learner demonstrated a similar c-statistic as the logistic regression model (0.670 vs. 0.671). The machine learning risk estimates were highly calibrated with observed efficacy and bleeding outcomes (Hosmer–Lemeshow p value = 0.692 and 0.970, respectively). The super learner algorithm was highly calibrated on both efficacy and safety outcomes and produced the highest c-statistic for prediction of MACE compared to traditional risk stratification methods. This analysis demonstrates a contemporary application of machine learning to guide patient-level antithrombotic therapy treatment decisions.Clinical Trial Registration ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 46: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402597. Unique Identifier: NCT00402597. ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 51: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00809965. Unique Identifier: NCT00809965. GEMINI ACS-1: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02293395. Unique Identifier: NCT02293395. PIONEER-AF PCI: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01830543. Unique Identifier: NCT01830543.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
