Why the study?
Guideline algorithms often result in indeterminate LVFP, and machine learning methods lack interpretability, necessitating explainable models for clinical use.
Does an explainable machine learning model improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to guideline-recommended algorithms in patients undergoing echocardiography and right heart catheterization?
Population
956 patients undergoing echocardiography and RHC at three hospitals
Comparison
Two explainable machine learning models vs guideline-recommended algorithm
Design
Retrospective multicenter validation study
Key result
Explainable machine learning models significantly outperformed guideline-recommended algorithms in estimating elevated left ventricular filling pressure (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.72; p=0.016).
Authors
Loading...
Explainable ML may aid LVFP estimation when guidelines are indeterminate; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Observational (n=956)
Yes
Does an explainable machine learning model improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to guideline-recommended algorithms in patients undergoing echocardiography and right heart catheterization?
Effect estimate: AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.91)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.83% vs 0.72%
p-value: p=0.016
Explainable machine learning models using echocardiographic parameters significantly improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to conventional guideline algorithms, while providing patient-level interpretability.
Nakamura et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (n=956). Explainable machine learning models (XGBoost) vs. Guideline-recommended algorithms was evaluated on Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for elevated LVFP (PAWP ≥ 18 mmHg) (AUROC 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, p=0.016). Explainable machine learning models significantly outperformed guideline-recommended algorithms in estimating elevated left ventricular filling pressure (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.72; p=0.016).