Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31652290›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A machine learning approach for the prediction of pulmonary hypertension.

Andreas Leha, Kristian Hellenkamp, Bernhard Unsöld, Sitali Mushemi-Blake, Ajay M Shah, Gerd Hasenfuß, Tim Seidler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andreas LehaDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Kristian HellenkampClinic for Cardiology and Pulmonology/Heart Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Bernhard UnsöldDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Sitali Mushemi-BlakeKing's College London British Heart Foundation Centre, School of Cardiovascular Medicine & Sciences, London, England, United Kingdom.
Ajay M ShahKing's College London British Heart Foundation Centre, School of Cardiovascular Medicine & Sciences, London, England, United Kingdom.
Gerd HasenfußClinic for Cardiology and Pulmonology/Heart Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Tim SeidlerClinic for Cardiology and Pulmonology/Heart Center, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6158-5087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) is a powerful tool for identifying and structuring several informative variables for predictive tasks. Here, we investigated how ML algorithms may assist in echocardiographic pulmonary hypertension (PH) prediction, where current guidelines recommend integrating several echocardiographic parameters.

methodsIn our database of 90 patients with invasively determined pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) with corresponding echocardiographic estimations of PAP obtained within 24 hours, we trained and applied five ML algorithms (random forest of classification trees, random forest of regression trees, lasso penalized logistic regression, boosted classification trees, support vector machines) using a 10 times 3-fold cross-validation (CV) scheme.

resultsML algorithms achieved high prediction accuracies: support vector machines (AUC 0.83; 95% CI 0.73-0.93), boosted classification trees (AUC 0.80; 95% CI 0.68-0.92), lasso penalized logistic regression (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.89), random forest of classification trees (AUC 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.95), random forest of regression trees (AUC 0.87; 95% CI 0.78-0.96). In contrast to the best of several conventional formulae (by Aduen et al.), this ML algorithm is based on several echocardiographic signs and feature selection, with estimated right atrial pressure (RAP) being of minor importance.

conclusionsUsing ML, we were able to predict pulmonary hypertension based on a broader set of echocardiographic data with little reliance on estimated RAP compared to an existing formula with non-inferior performance. With the conceptual advantages of a broader and unbiased selection and weighting of data our ML approach is suited for high level assistance in PH prediction.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAgedElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansHypertension, PulmonaryMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID31652290
PMCPMC6814224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.