Key result
Machine learning models improve ASCVD risk discrimination over traditional scores in HIV to AUC ~0.71.
Why the study?
Do machine learning risk prediction models improve the discrimination and calibration of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction compared to the Framingham Risk Score and Pooled Cohort Equations in people living with HIV?
Cohort (n=123,304)
Yes
Do machine learning risk prediction models improve the discrimination and calibration of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction compared to the Framingham Risk Score and Pooled Cohort Equations in people living with HIV?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Machine learning models trained on combined HIV and non-HIV EHR data improve ASCVD risk discrimination and substantially correct the severe risk underprediction seen with Framingham and Pooled Cohort Equations in people living with HIV.
Background As life expectancy rises for people with HIV, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has become a major contributor to morbidity. Extant risk models understate this risk, stressing the need for better models for HIV patients. Methods We studied new ASCVD events using Veterans Health Administration data (baseline 2010-15 and follow-up through 2020). We built four machine learning (ML) models to predict CVD: K-nearest neighbors, Random Forest, Logistic Regression and Neural Network, which were compared to two general risk models: Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE). ML models were trained on all Veterans and only on HIV-positive Veterans and assessed with 5-fold validation. We measured discrimination via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration via Hosmer-Lemeshow. Results 20,650 Veterans with HIV and 102,654 without HIV were included. HIV patients were 97% male and 51% Black, with a mean age of 52 years. Models trained on all data had better discrimination than models trained only on HIV data. Neural Network and Logistic Regression models trained on all data, and both Random Forest models, had moderately improved discrimination compared to FRS and PCE (AUC ∼0.70 for ML models vs. ∼0.65). FRS and PCE underpredicted CVD risk with observed-to-expected ratios of 2.1 and 1.7, while ML models reached ratios closer to 1. Conclusions ML models for CVD risk can enhance predictive performance in HIV, with a notable impact on underprediction. Models developed in HIV and non-HIV mixed populations have the best performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dandapani et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in people living with HIV (n=123,304). Machine learning risk prediction models (Random Forest, Neural Network, Logistic Regression, K-nearest neighbors) vs. Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) was evaluated on Total cardiovascular disease incidence (composite of incident coronary artery disease, ischemic cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral artery disease, and related major procedures) (AUC 0.707 (Random Forest and Neural Network) vs AUC 0.661 (FRS) and 0.652 (PCE), 95% CI 0.688-0.726). Machine learning models (Random Forest and Neural Network) improved ASCVD risk discrimination and calibration compared to PCE and FRS in HIV patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: