Key result
An echocardiographic machine learning model achieved 59.4% accuracy for pulmonary hypertension classification in an independent validation cohort, comparable to guideline-based assessment (57.8%, P=0.638).
Why the study?
Classification of pulmonary hypertension is crucial for therapy, and investigators tested whether machine learning algorithms could assist echocardiographic prediction where current guidelines require integrating multiple parameters.
Does a machine learning algorithm improve echocardiographic classification of pulmonary hypertension compared to guideline-based assessment in patients undergoing right heart catheterisation?
Observational (n=885)
Does a machine learning algorithm improve echocardiographic classification of pulmonary hypertension compared to guideline-based assessment in patients undergoing right heart catheterisation?
Absolute Event Rate: 59.4% vs 57.8%
p-value: p=0.638
An echocardiography-based machine learning model achieved comparable accuracy to guideline-based assessment for classifying pulmonary hypertension subtypes, highlighting its potential as a non-invasive diagnostic aid.
ML may improve echocardiographic PH classification accuracy over guidelines; extends multiparameter integration for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: The classification of pulmonary hypertension (PH) is crucial for determining the appropriate therapeutic strategy. We investigated whether machine learning (ML) algorithms may assist in echocardiographic PH prediction, where current guidelines recommend integrating several different parameters. METHODS: We obtained physical and echocardiographic data from 885 patients who underwent right heart catheterisation (RHC). Patients were classified into three groups: non-PH, precapillary PH and postcapillary PH, based on values obtained from RHC. Using 24 parameters, we created predictive models employing four different classifiers and selected the one with the highest area under the curve. We then calculated the macro-average classification accuracy for PH on the derivation cohort (n=720) and prospective validation data set (n=165), comparing the results with guideline-based echocardiographic assessment obtained from each cohort. RESULTS: Logistic regression with elastic net regularisation had the highest classification accuracy, with areas under the curves of 0.789, 0.766 and 0.742 for normal, precapillary PH and postcapillary PH, respectively. The ML model demonstrated significantly better predictive accuracy than the guideline-based echocardiographic assessment in the derivation cohort (59.4% vs 51.6%, p<0.01). In the independent validation data set, the ML model's accuracy was comparable to the guideline-based PH classification (59.4% vs 57.8%, p=0.638). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests promising potential for our ML model in predicting echocardiographic PH. Further research and validation are needed to fully assess its clinical utility in PH diagnosis and treatment decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirata et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Pulmonary hypertension (n=885). Machine learning model for echocardiographic assessment vs. Guideline-based echocardiographic assessment was evaluated on Macro-average classification accuracy for pulmonary hypertension in the validation cohort (p=0.638). An echocardiographic machine learning model achieved 59.4% accuracy for pulmonary hypertension classification in an independent validation cohort, comparable to guideline-based assessment (57.8%, P=0.638).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: