Why the study?
Early prediction of significant coronary artery lesions, including coronary vasospasm, had not been studied to discern disorders requiring coronary angiography from mimicking diseases.
Does machine learning improve the prediction of disorders with significant coronary lesions in patients admitted with chest symptoms compared to conventional logistic regression?
Does machine learning improve the prediction of disorders with significant coronary lesions in patients admitted with chest symptoms compared to conventional logistic regression?
Machine learning models using 21 clinical variables can effectively predict significant coronary lesions in patients presenting with chest symptoms, potentially assisting in triage for coronary angiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ML-derived variables may aid ED differentiation of significant lesions from mimics; leaves open need for prospective validation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: The early prediction of significant coronary artery lesion, including coronary vasospasm, have yet to be studied. It is essential to discern the disorders with significant coronary lesions (SCDs) requiring coronary angiography from mimicking disease. We aimed to determine which of all clinical variables were more important using conventional logistic regression (cLR) and machine learning (ML). MATERIALS: Of 3382 patients with chest pain/discomfort or dyspnea in whom CAG was performed, 1893 were included. All clinical data were divided as follows (i): Demographics, history, and physical examination; (ii): (i) plus electrocardiography; and (iii): (ii) plus echocardiography, and analyzed by cLR and ML. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis via cLR, the AUC and accuracy of the model using the final 20 variables were 0.795 and 72.62%, respectively. In multivariable analysis via ML, the best AUCs in the internal validation were 0.8 with (i), 0.81 with (ii), 0.83 with (iii), and in external validation, the best AUCs were 0.71 with (i), 0.74 with (ii), and 0.79 with (iii). The best AUCs and accuracy of the fittest model including 21 importance variables by ML were 0.81 and 72.48% in internal validation; and 0.75 and 70.5% in external validation, respectively. The importance variables in ML and cLR were similar, but slightly different and the additional discriminators via ML were found. CONCLUSION: The assessment using the fittest importance variables can assist physicians in differentiating mimicking diseases in which coronary angiography may not be required in patients suspected of having acute coronary syndrome in emergency department.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: