ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
An early aortic dissection screening model and applied research based on ensemble learning.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pitfalls in Developing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Cardiovascular Diseases: Challenge and Solutions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Machine learning predictive model for aspiration screening in hospitalized patients with acute stroke.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Model-Based Simple Clinical Information to Predict Decreased Left Atrial Appendage Flow Velocity.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs a particularly dangerous and rare cardiovascular disease, aortic dissection (AD) is characterized by complex and diverse symptoms and signs. In the early stage, the rate of misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis is relatively high. This study aimed to use machine learning technology to establish a fast and accurate screening model that requires only patients' routine examination data as input to obtain predictive results.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the examination data and diagnosis results of 53,213 patients with cardiovascular disease was conducted. Among these samples, 802 samples had AD. Forty-two features were extracted from the patients' routine examination data to establish a prediction model. There were five ensemble learning models applied to explore the possibility of using machine learning methods to build screening models for AD, including AdaBoost, XGBoost, SmoteBagging, EasyEnsemble and XGBF. Among these, XGBF is an ensemble learning model that we propose to deal with the imbalance of the positive and negative samples. The seven-fold cross validation method was used to analyze and verify the performance of each model. Due to the imbalance of the samples, the evaluation indicators were sensitivity and specificity.
resultsComparative experiments showed that the sensitivity of XGBF was 80.5%, which was better than the 16.1% of AdaBoost, 15.7% of XGBoost, 78.0% of SmoteBagging and 77.8% of EasyEnsemble. Additionally, XGBF had relatively high specificity, and the training time consumption was short. Based on these three indicators, XGBF performed best, and met the application requirements, which means through careful design, we can use machine learning technology to achieve early AD screening.
conclusionsThrough reasonable design, the ensemble learning method can be used to build an effective screening model. The XGBF has high practical application value for screening for AD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.