ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2019
Identification of clinically relevant features in hypertensive patients using penalized regression: a case study of cardiovascular events.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Models for Time-to-Event Outcome Applied in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction.Journal of medical systems · 2024Pooled it
- Impact and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines Based on Machine Learning Analysis of a Time Series: A Population-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Learning and non-learning algorithms for cuffless blood pressure measurement: a review.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Review
- Use of a K-nearest neighbors model to predict the development of type 2 diabetes within 2 years in an obese, hypertensive population.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
- Survival Prediction in Home Hospice Care Patients with Lung Cancer Based on LASSO Algorithm.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Appropriate management of hypertensive patients relies on the accurate identification of clinically relevant features. However, traditional statistical methods may ignore important information in datasets or overlook possible interactions among features. Machine learning may improve the prediction accuracy and interpretability of regression models by identifying the most relevant features in hypertensive patients. We sought the most relevant features for prediction of cardiovascular (CV) events in a hypertensive population. We used the penalized regression models least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and elastic net (EN) to obtain the most parsimonious and accurate models. The clinical parameters and laboratory biomarkers were collected from the clinical records of 1,471 patients receiving care at Mostoles University Hospital. The outcome was the development of major adverse CV events. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed alone and with penalized regression analyses (LASSO and EN), producing three models. The modeling was performed using 10-fold cross-validation to fit the penalized models. The three predictive models were compared and statistically analyzed to assess their classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, discriminative power, and calibration accuracy. The standard Cox model identified five relevant features, while LASSO and EN identified only three (age, LDL cholesterol, and kidney function). The accuracies of the models (prediction vs. observation) were 0.767 (Cox model), 0.754 (LASSO), and 0.764 (EN), and the areas under the curve were 0.694, 0.670, and 0.673, respectively. However, pairwise comparison of performance yielded no statistically significant differences. All three calibration curves showed close agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities of the development of a CV event. Although the performance was similar for all three models, both penalized regression analyses produced models with good fit and fewer features than the Cox regression predictive model but with the same accuracy. This case study of predictive models using penalized regression analyses shows that penalized regularization techniques can provide predictive models for CV risk assessment that are parsimonious, highly interpretable, and generalizable and that have good fit. For clinicians, a parsimonious model can be useful where available data are limited, as such a model can offer a simple but efficient way to model the impact of the different features on the prediction of CV events. Management of these features may lower the risk for a CV event. Graphical Abstract In a clinical setting, with numerous biological and laboratory features and incomplete datasets, traditional statistical methods may ignore important information and overlook possible interactions among features. Our aim was to identify the most relevant features to predict cardiovascular events in a hypertensive population, using three different regression approaches for feature selection, to improve the prediction accuracy and interpretability of regression models by identifying the relevant features in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31346948What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.