Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36694118›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Comparison of State-of-the-Art Neural Network Survival Models with the Pooled Cohort Equations for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction.

Yu Deng, Lei Liu, Hongmei Jiang, Yifan Peng, Yishu Wei, Zhiyang Zhou, Yizhen Zhong, Yun Zhao, Xiaoyun Yang, Jingzhi Yu and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Yu DengCenter for Health Information Partnerships, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lei LiuDivision of Biostatistics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Hongmei JiangDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Yifan PengDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Yishu WeiDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Zhiyang ZhouDepartment of Statistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Yizhen ZhongCenter for Health Information Partnerships, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Yun ZhaoDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Xiaoyun YangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jingzhi YuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abel KhoCenter for Health Information Partnerships, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hongyan NingDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Norrina B AllenDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
John T WilkinsDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kiang LiuDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Donald M Lloyd-JonesDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lihui ZhaoCenter for Health Information Partnerships, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. lihui.zhao@northwestern.edu.
Northwestern University · USCornell University · USNational Center for Biotechnology Information · USUniversity of California, Santa Barbara · USUniversity of Manitoba · CAWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing for Biomedical ApplicationsZIALM237241 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2023 to 2025
$12.2M
Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI MILDA Renne SAUNDERS · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Methods to Improve Personalized Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Across the Life CourseR01HL136942 · NHLBI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ZHAO, LIHUI · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL136942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) are race- and sex-specific Cox proportional hazards (PH)-based models used for 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction with acceptable discrimination. In recent years, neural network models have gained increasing popularity with their success in image recognition and text classification. Various survival neural network models have been proposed by combining survival analysis and neural network architecture to take advantage of the strengths from both. However, the performance of these survival neural network models compared to each other and to PCEs in ASCVD prediction is unknown.

methodsIn this study, we used 6 cohorts from the Lifetime Risk Pooling Project (with 5 cohorts as training/internal validation and one cohort as external validation) and compared the performance of the PCEs in 10-year ASCVD risk prediction with an all two-way interactions Cox PH model (Cox PH-TWI) and three state-of-the-art neural network survival models including Nnet-survival, Deepsurv, and Cox-nnet. For all the models, we used the same 7 covariates as used in the PCEs. We fitted each of the aforementioned models in white females, white males, black females, and black males, respectively. We evaluated models' internal and external discrimination power and calibration.

resultsThe training/internal validation sample comprised 23216 individuals. The average age at baseline was 57.8 years old (SD = 9.6); 16% developed ASCVD during average follow-up of 10.50 (SD = 3.02) years. Based on 10 × 10 cross-validation, the method that had the highest C-statistics was Deepsurv (0.7371) for white males, Deepsurv and Cox PH-TWI (0.7972) for white females, PCE (0.6981) for black males, and Deepsurv (0.7886) for black females. In the external validation dataset, Deepsurv (0.7032), Cox-nnet (0.7282), PCE (0.6811), and Deepsurv (0.7316) had the highest C-statistics for white male, white female, black male, and black female population, respectively. Calibration plots showed that in 10 × 10 validation, all models had good calibration in all race and sex groups. In external validation, all models overestimated the risk for 10-year ASCVD.

conclusionsWe demonstrated the use of the state-of-the-art neural network survival models in ASCVD risk prediction. Neural network survival models had similar if not superior discrimination and calibration compared to PCEs.

Indexed as

AtherosclerosisCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsArtificial intelligenceCardiovascular diseaseCox regressionDeep learningMachine learningNeural networkPooled Cohort EquationsPredictive modelingSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID36694118
PMCPMC9872364
OpenAlexW4317907993

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.