Uplift modeling to identify patients who require extensive catheter ablation procedures among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

Identifying patients who would benefit from extensive catheter ablation along with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among those with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has been a subject of controversy. The objective of this study was to apply uplift modeling, a machine learning method for analyzing...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2024-02, Vol.14 (1), p.2634-2634, Article 2634
Hauptverfasser: Sato, Taiki, Sotomi, Yohei, Hikoso, Shungo, Kitamura, Tetsuhisa, Nakatani, Daisaku, Okada, Katsuki, Dohi, Tomoharu, Sunaga, Akihiro, Kida, Hirota, Matsuoka, Yuki, Tanaka, Nobuaki, Watanabe, Tetsuya, Makino, Nobuhiko, Egami, Yasuyuki, Oka, Takafumi, Minamiguchi, Hitoshi, Miyoshi, Miwa, Okada, Masato, Kanda, Takashi, Matsuda, Yasuhiro, Kawasaki, Masato, Masuda, Masaharu, Inoue, Koichi, Sakata, Yasushi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Identifying patients who would benefit from extensive catheter ablation along with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among those with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has been a subject of controversy. The objective of this study was to apply uplift modeling, a machine learning method for analyzing individual causal effect, to identify such patients in the EARNEST-PVI trial, a randomized trial in patients with persistent AF. We developed 16 uplift models using different machine learning algorithms, and determined that the best performing model was adaptive boosting using Qini coefficients. The optimal uplift score threshold was 0.0124. Among patients with an uplift score ≥ 0.0124, those who underwent extensive catheter ablation (PVI-plus) showed a significantly lower recurrence rate of AF compared to those who received only PVI (PVI-alone) (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19–0.84; P -value = 0.015). In contrast, among patients with an uplift score
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-52976-7