Key result
Machine learning models, particularly Random Forest (AUC 0.772), retained moderate predictive ability for reduced global longitudinal strain upon external validation.
Why the study?
The study aimed to externally validate the performance and generalizability of previously developed machine learning models predicting reduced global longitudinal strain from conventional echocardiographic parameters in patients with cancer.
Observational (n=1,625)
Yes
ML models for low-GLS prediction in cancer patients should not yet alter CTRCD screening; leaves open generalizability and outcome impact.
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a well-established prognostic marker for the early detection of cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). We previously developed machine learning (ML) models to predict reduced GLS (Low-GLS, defined as absolute GLS < 16%) from conventional echocardiographic parameters in patients with cancer. This study aimed to externally validate the performance and generalizability of the previously developed ML models in an independent cohort. This multicenter study included patients from the Tokyo Metropolitan Tama Medical Center (TMC, n = 1484) and Shizuoka Cancer Center (SCC, n = 141) who underwent echocardiography with GLS measurements before or after anticancer chemotherapy. The exclusion criterion was left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%. Low-GLS was predicted using 25 conventional echocardiographic parameters. The previously developed ML models (Random Forest, Extra Trees, and CatBoost) were directly applied, without retraining, to an independent external validation cohort from SCC. A conventional logistic regression model was included as a reference for comparison. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and other metrics. In the internal validation cohort, the ML models demonstrated discriminative comparable performance (AUCs 0.722–0.748), whereas logistic regression achieved an AUC of 0.729. In the external validation cohort, performance was generally preserved; the Random Forest model demonstrated the highest discriminative ability (AUC 0.772), while the remaining models achieved AUCs of 0.725–0.746. Logistic regression achieved an AUC of 0.738. ML models trained on conventional echocardiographic parameters retained moderate predictive ability for reduced GLS upon external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anzai et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cancer (n=1,625). Machine learning models (Random Forest, Extra Trees, CatBoost) vs. Conventional logistic regression model was evaluated on Prediction of reduced global longitudinal strain (absolute GLS < 16%) (AUC 0.772). Machine learning models, particularly Random Forest (AUC 0.772), retained moderate predictive ability for reduced global longitudinal strain upon external validation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: