Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38578764›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Development and web deployment of prediction model for pulmonary arterial pressure in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension using machine learning.

Takaaki Matsunaga, Atsushi Kono, Mizuho Nishio, Takahiro Yoshii, Hidetoshi Matsuo, Mai Takahashi, Takuya Takahashi, Yu Taniguchi, Hidekazu Tanaka, Kenichi Hirata and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takaaki MatsunagaDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Atsushi KonoDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Mizuho NishioDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6037-2338
Takahiro YoshiiKobe University School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Hidetoshi MatsuoDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Mai TakahashiDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Takuya TakahashiDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Yu TaniguchiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Hidekazu TanakaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Kenichi HirataDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Takamichi MurakamiDepartment of Radiology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan.
Kobe University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeMean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) is a key index for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Using machine learning, we attempted to construct an accurate prediction model for mPAP in patients with CTEPH.

methodsA total of 136 patients diagnosed with CTEPH were included, for whom mPAP was measured. The following patient data were used as explanatory variables in the model: basic patient information (age and sex), blood tests (brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)), echocardiography (tricuspid valve pressure gradient (TRPG)), and chest radiography (cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), right second arc ratio, and presence of avascular area). Seven machine learning methods including linear regression were used for the multivariable prediction models. Additionally, prediction models were constructed using the AutoML software. Among the 136 patients, 2/3 and 1/3 were used as training and validation sets, respectively. The average of R squared was obtained from 10 different data splittings of the training and validation sets.

resultsThe optimal machine learning model was linear regression (averaged R squared, 0.360). The optimal combination of explanatory variables with linear regression was age, BNP level, TRPG level, and CTR (averaged R squared, 0.388). The R squared of the optimal multivariable linear regression model was higher than that of the univariable linear regression model with only TRPG.

conclusionWe constructed a more accurate prediction model for mPAP in patients with CTEPH than a model of TRPG only. The prediction performance of our model was improved by selecting the optimal machine learning method and combination of explanatory variables.

Indexed as

Hypertension, PulmonaryPulmonary EmbolismArterial PressureChronic DiseaseEchocardiographyHumansNatriuretic Peptide, BrainTricuspid ValveNatriuretic Peptide, Brain

Identifiers

PMID38578764
PMCPMC10997056
OpenAlexW4393997091

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.