Machine learning for prediction of all-cause mortality in acute coronary syndrome

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains one of the leading causes of death globally. Accurate and reliable mortality risk prediction of ACS patients is essential for developing targeted treatment strategies and improve prognostication. Traditional models for risk stratification suc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European heart journal 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1)
Hauptverfasser: Zaka, A, Gupta, A, Mustafiz, C, Mutahar, D, Parvez, R, Stretton, B, Kovoor, J, Mridha, N, Bacchi, S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains one of the leading causes of death globally. Accurate and reliable mortality risk prediction of ACS patients is essential for developing targeted treatment strategies and improve prognostication. Traditional models for risk stratification such as the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk scores offer moderate discriminative value, and do not incorporate contemporary predictors of ACS prognosis. Machine learning (ML) models have emerged as an alternate method that may offer improved risk assessment. This study aims to compare machine learning models with traditional risk scores for predicting all-cause mortality in patients with ACS. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched until 1st November 2023 for studies comparing ML models with traditional statistical methods for event prediction of ACS patients. The primary outcome was comparative discrimination measured by C-statistics with 95% confidence intervals between ML models and traditional methods in estimating the risk of all-cause mortality. Results Ten studies were included (239627 patients). The summary C-statistic of all ML models across all endpoints was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92), compared to traditional methods 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85). The difference in C-statistic between all ML models and traditional methods was 0.07 (p
ISSN:0195-668X
1522-9645
DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.3448