Comparative Evaluation of Pre-Test Probability Models for Coronary Artery Disease with Assessment of a New Machine Learning-Based Model.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kyung-A Kim, Min Soo Kang, Byoung Geol Choi, Ji Hun Ahn, Wonho Kim, Myung-Ae Chung
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Pre-Test Probability Models for Coronary Artery Disease with Assessment of a New Machine Learning-Based Model.","authors":"Kyung-A Kim, Min Soo Kang, Byoung Geol Choi, Ji Hun Ahn, Wonho Kim, Myung-Ae Chung","doi":"10.3349/ymj.2024.0067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812-0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758-0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705-0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726-0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, ML-CAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2).</p>","PeriodicalId":23765,"journal":{"name":"Yonsei Medical Journal","volume":"66 4","pages":"211-217"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yonsei Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2024.0067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model).

Materials and methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis.

Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812-0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758-0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705-0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726-0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, ML-CAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively.

Conclusion: ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2).

冠状动脉疾病测试前概率模型与基于机器学习的新模型评估的比较评估。
目的:验证关键预测概率(PTP)-冠心病(CAD)模型(CAD consortium模型和IJC-CAD模型)的有效性。材料与方法:传统PTP模型-CAD联盟模型:采用CAD联盟框架下的两个传统PTP模型,即CAD1和CAD2。基于机器学习(ML)的PTP模型:从CAD1和CAD2衍生出两个基于ML的PTP模型,并用于增强预测能力[ML-CAD2和ML- ijc (IJC-CAD)]。主要终点为阻塞性CAD。利用接收机-工作特性分析对这些PTP模型进行了性能评价。结果:该研究包括238名参与者,其中157人(占总样本的65.9%)患有CAD。IJC-CAD模型表现出最高的性能,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.860[95%置信区间(CI): 0.812-0.909]。随后,ML-CAD2模型的AUC为0.814 (95% CI: 0.758-0.870), CAD1模型的AUC为0.767 (95% CI: 0.705-0.830), CAD2模型的AUC为0.785 (95% CI: 0.726-0.845)。每个PTP模型都调整为具有CAD评分截止值,其分类病例的灵敏度超过95%。截止值分别为:CAD1和CAD2 b>2, ML-CAD2 b> 0.380, IJC-CAD >0.367。所有PTP模型均达到95%以上的CAD灵敏度。与AUC性能相似,IJC-CAD的PTP模型精度最高,达到80.3%。ML-CAD2的准确率为77.7%,CAD1和CAD2的准确率分别为74.8%和75.2%。结论:ML-CAD2和IJC-CAD与传统的现有模型(CAD1和CAD2)相比,具有更优越的性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Yonsei Medical Journal
Yonsei Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The goal of the Yonsei Medical Journal (YMJ) is to publish high quality manuscripts dedicated to clinical or basic research. Any authors affiliated with an accredited biomedical institution may submit manuscripts of original articles, review articles, case reports, brief communications, and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信