Cardiovascular risk sharply assessed by machine learning

In a study of machine learning’s ability to predict cardiovascular problems, 10 of 15 models proved more accurate than manual methods of risk assessment.

The study was conducted in Spain and published July 1 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice.

Dr. Adriana LopezPineda of Miguel Hernandez University and colleagues compared their 15 algorithms with two established assessment scales, applying all to a cohort of some 38,527 patients in a Spanish database and tracking outcomes over five years.

They found the three machine-learning methods with the best predictive capacity had area under the ROC curve (AUC) scores of 0.7086 (quadratic discriminant analysis), 0.7084 (NaiveBayes) and 0.7042 (neural networks).

By comparison, the conventional risk-scaling methods—which are widely used in clinical practice in Spain—fell in at 11th and 12th places, with AUCs below 0.64.

Seven algorithms had significantly higher predictive capacity as well as higher sensitivity and specificity than the manual scores.

“Machine-learning methods should be considered in the development of future cardiovascular risk scales,” the authors concluded.

Dave Pearson

Dave P. has worked in journalism, marketing and public relations for more than 30 years, frequently concentrating on hospitals, healthcare technology and Catholic communications. He has also specialized in fundraising communications, ghostwriting for CEOs of local, national and global charities, nonprofits and foundations.

Around the web

Compensation for heart specialists continues to climb. What does this say about cardiology as a whole? Could private equity's rising influence bring about change? We spoke to MedAxiom CEO Jerry Blackwell, MD, MBA, a veteran cardiologist himself, to learn more.

The American College of Cardiology has shared its perspective on new CMS payment policies, highlighting revenue concerns while providing key details for cardiologists and other cardiology professionals. 

As debate simmers over how best to regulate AI, experts continue to offer guidance on where to start, how to proceed and what to emphasize. A new resource models its recommendations on what its authors call the “SETO Loop.”