Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34874889›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Machine Learning Methodologies for Prediction of Rhythm-Control Strategy in Patients Diagnosed With Atrial Fibrillation: Observational, Retrospective, Case-Control Study.

Rachel S Kim, Steven Simon, Brett Powers, Amneet Sandhu, Jose Sanchez, Ryan T Borne, Alexis Tumolo, Matthew Zipse, J Jason West, Ryan Aleong and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Machine learning in the detection and management of atrial fibrillation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022
    Review
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel S KimColorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-0196
Steven SimonDivision of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5385-3574
Brett PowersColorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6791-4873
Amneet SandhuClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6435-5746
Jose SanchezClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1331-2460
Ryan T BorneClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-9180
Alexis TumoloClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8693-0975
Matthew ZipseClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5662-8505
J Jason WestClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1937-4582
Ryan AleongClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1761-6066
Wendy TzouClinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Section, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-1165
Michael A RosenbergColorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6708-1648
University of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Development of End-To-End Clinical Decision Support Tools To Prevent Cardiotoxic Drug ResponseR01HL146824 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ROSENBERG, MICHAEL A · 2020 to 2024
$3.9M
Genetics of Cardiotoxic Drug ResponseK23HL127296 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI ROSENBERG, MICHAEL A · 2015 to 2020
$932k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL127296NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL146824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe identification of an appropriate rhythm management strategy for patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a major challenge for providers. Although clinical trials have identified subgroups of patients in whom a rate- or rhythm-control strategy might be indicated to improve outcomes, the wide range of presentations and risk factors among patients presenting with AF makes such approaches challenging. The strength of electronic health records is the ability to build in logic to guide management decisions, such that the system can automatically identify patients in whom a rhythm-control strategy is more likely and can promote efficient referrals to specialists. However, like any clinical decision support tool, there is a balance between interpretability and accurate prediction.

objectiveThis study aims to create an electronic health record-based prediction tool to guide patient referral to specialists for rhythm-control management by comparing different machine learning algorithms.

methodsWe compared machine learning models of increasing complexity and used up to 50,845 variables to predict the rhythm-control strategy in 42,022 patients within the University of Colorado Health system at the time of AF diagnosis. Models were evaluated on the basis of their classification accuracy, defined by the F1 score and other metrics, and interpretability, captured by inspection of the relative importance of each predictor.

resultsWe found that age was by far the strongest single predictor of a rhythm-control strategy but that greater accuracy could be achieved with more complex models incorporating neural networks and more predictors for each participant. We determined that the impact of better prediction models was notable primarily in the rate of inappropriate referrals for rhythm-control, in which more complex models provided an average of 20% fewer inappropriate referrals than simpler, more interpretable models.

conclusionsWe conclude that any health care system seeking to incorporate algorithms to guide rhythm management for patients with AF will need to address this trade-off between prediction accuracy and model interpretability.

Indexed as

ablationantiarrhythmia agentsartificial intelligenceatrial fibrillationbiostatisticsdata sciencemachine learningrhythm-control

Identifiers

PMID34874889
PMCPMC8691402
OpenAlexW4200031888

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.