Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 4;12(4):e0174944.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174944. eCollection 2017.

Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?

Affiliations

Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?

Stephen F Weng et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Current approaches to predict cardiovascular risk fail to identify many people who would benefit from preventive treatment, while others receive unnecessary intervention. Machine-learning offers opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors. We assessed whether machine-learning can improve cardiovascular risk prediction.

Methods: Prospective cohort study using routine clinical data of 378,256 patients from UK family practices, free from cardiovascular disease at outset. Four machine-learning algorithms (random forest, logistic regression, gradient boosting machines, neural networks) were compared to an established algorithm (American College of Cardiology guidelines) to predict first cardiovascular event over 10-years. Predictive accuracy was assessed by area under the 'receiver operating curve' (AUC); and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) to predict 7.5% cardiovascular risk (threshold for initiating statins).

Findings: 24,970 incident cardiovascular events (6.6%) occurred. Compared to the established risk prediction algorithm (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.723-0.735), machine-learning algorithms improved prediction: random forest +1.7% (AUC 0.745, 95% CI 0.739-0.750), logistic regression +3.2% (AUC 0.760, 95% CI 0.755-0.766), gradient boosting +3.3% (AUC 0.761, 95% CI 0.755-0.766), neural networks +3.6% (AUC 0.764, 95% CI 0.759-0.769). The highest achieving (neural networks) algorithm predicted 4,998/7,404 cases (sensitivity 67.5%, PPV 18.4%) and 53,458/75,585 non-cases (specificity 70.7%, NPV 95.7%), correctly predicting 355 (+7.6%) more patients who developed cardiovascular disease compared to the established algorithm.

Conclusions: Machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Patient cohort data extraction procedures.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Illuminating “black-box” understanding of machine-learning neural networks: visualization of the risk factors and their association with cardiovascular disease developed from CPRD primary care study population.
Green lines are positive predictors, red lines are negative predictors, and the thickness of the line represents the weight (importance) of the risk factor to the outcome.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2014.
    1. Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013; 135(11): 1–50. - PubMed
    1. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, Robson J, Minhas R, Sheikh A, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 2008; 336(7659): 1475–82. 10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, et al. General Cardiovascular Risk Profile for Use in Primary Care: The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008; 117(6): 743–53. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ridker P, Buring JE, Rifai N, Cook NR. Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: The reynolds risk score. JAMA 2007; 297(6): 611–9. 10.1001/jama.297.6.611 - DOI - PubMed