Developing a new LDLc regressor machine learning model to predict LDLc levels and comparing with conventional LDLc formula: our experience from clinical laboratory dataset.
{"title":"Developing a new LDLc regressor machine learning model to predict LDLc levels and comparing with conventional LDLc formula: our experience from clinical laboratory dataset.","authors":"Suchitra Kumari, Saurav Nayak","doi":"10.1177/00045632261497288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundThe treatment goals of cardiovascular diseases are focused primarily on LDLc. ML-based LDLc estimation methods offer a superior, reliable alternative to traditional formulas. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ML-based LDLc estimation models and compare their accuracy to direct LDLc and conventionally used formulas.MethodsML models based on Elastic Net-Based Formula, Elastic Net based Formula With Simplified Coefficient, Random Forest (RDF), eXtreme Gradient Boost, Multiple Layer Perceptron Regressor (MLP) were developed based on 61,444 patient datapoints, that is, 36,866-internal dataset and 24,578-external dataset. The performance of model evaluated in data subsets based on Total Cholesterol and TG levels. These subsets were evaluated, that is, adjusted R<sup>2</sup>, MSE, RMSE, Mean Absolute Error, % Bias along with evaluation matrix score (EMS)-based ranking and Subset-Integrated EMS (SI-EMS).ResultsBased on the EMS and SI-EMS, MLP model was depicted to be the best model for overall dataset as well as all subsets. Bland-Altman plot showed all ML models Highly Reliable based on Bias and Trend (r). Among the formulas, Martin's is only Highly Reliable. Classification Validation Score (CVS) depicted better performance of ML models than their counterparts, except when classifying Very High LDL. MLP was in top five methods with equivalent CVS to top models.ConclusionBased on the SI-EMS, ML models and formula were evaluated, the MLP neural network performed the best to estimate LDLc levels, and the web application constructed by utilising best model could be a potential aid to clinicians and laboratories in estimating LDL values closer to the actual measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":8005,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","volume":" ","pages":"45632261497288"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632261497288","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundThe treatment goals of cardiovascular diseases are focused primarily on LDLc. ML-based LDLc estimation methods offer a superior, reliable alternative to traditional formulas. This study aims to evaluate the performance of ML-based LDLc estimation models and compare their accuracy to direct LDLc and conventionally used formulas.MethodsML models based on Elastic Net-Based Formula, Elastic Net based Formula With Simplified Coefficient, Random Forest (RDF), eXtreme Gradient Boost, Multiple Layer Perceptron Regressor (MLP) were developed based on 61,444 patient datapoints, that is, 36,866-internal dataset and 24,578-external dataset. The performance of model evaluated in data subsets based on Total Cholesterol and TG levels. These subsets were evaluated, that is, adjusted R2, MSE, RMSE, Mean Absolute Error, % Bias along with evaluation matrix score (EMS)-based ranking and Subset-Integrated EMS (SI-EMS).ResultsBased on the EMS and SI-EMS, MLP model was depicted to be the best model for overall dataset as well as all subsets. Bland-Altman plot showed all ML models Highly Reliable based on Bias and Trend (r). Among the formulas, Martin's is only Highly Reliable. Classification Validation Score (CVS) depicted better performance of ML models than their counterparts, except when classifying Very High LDL. MLP was in top five methods with equivalent CVS to top models.ConclusionBased on the SI-EMS, ML models and formula were evaluated, the MLP neural network performed the best to estimate LDLc levels, and the web application constructed by utilising best model could be a potential aid to clinicians and laboratories in estimating LDL values closer to the actual measurement.
背景:心血管疾病的治疗目标主要集中在ldl。基于ml的LDLc估计方法为传统公式提供了一种优越、可靠的替代方法。本研究旨在评估基于ml的LDLc估计模型的性能,并将其与直接LDLc和常规公式的精度进行比较。方法:基于61,444个患者数据点,即36,866个内部数据点和24,578个外部数据点,开发基于Elastic Net based Formula、Elastic Net based Formula、Random Forest(RDF)、eXtreme Gradient Boost、Multiple Layer Perceptron Regressor (MLP)的ML模型。基于总胆固醇和TG水平的数据子集评估模型的性能。对这些子集进行评估,即调整后的R2、MSE、RMSE、平均绝对误差、%偏差以及基于评估矩阵评分(EMS)的排名和子集集成EMS (SI-EMS)。结果:基于EMS和SI-EMS, MLP模型是整体数据集和所有子集的最佳模型。Bland Altmann图显示基于偏差和趋势(r)的所有ML模型都是高度可靠的。在这些公式中,马丁的公式只有“高度可靠”。除了对非常高的LDL进行分类外,分类验证分数(CVS)描述了ML模型比其他模型更好的性能。MLP在前5种方法中具有与顶级模型相当的CVS。结论:基于SI-EMS,对ML模型和公式进行了评价,MLP神经网络对LDL水平的估计效果最好,利用最佳模型构建的web应用程序可以帮助临床医生和实验室更接近实际测量值的LDL值。
期刊介绍:
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is the fully peer reviewed international journal of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry accepts papers that contribute to knowledge in all fields of laboratory medicine, especially those pertaining to the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of human disease. It publishes papers on clinical biochemistry, clinical audit, metabolic medicine, immunology, genetics, biotechnology, haematology, microbiology, computing and management where they have both biochemical and clinical relevance. Papers describing evaluation or implementation of commercial reagent kits or the performance of new analysers require substantial original information. Unless of exceptional interest and novelty, studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not generally considered within the journal''s scope. Studies documenting the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with particular phenotypes will not normally be considered, given the greater strength of genome wide association studies (GWAS). Research undertaken in non-human animals will not be considered for publication in the Annals.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is also the official journal of NVKC (de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie) and JSCC (Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry).