Why the study?
Predicting stroke risk in AF is important for guiding medication, but existing statistical risk assessment methods require considerable improvement in predictive performance.
Does a deep neural network-based machine learning model accurately predict stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does a deep neural network-based machine learning model accurately predict stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation?
A machine learning approach using deep neural networks and national health insurance data can predict stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation with high accuracy.
ML model may enhance AF stroke prediction on claims data; leaves open clinical utility pending validation.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a well-known risk factor for stroke. Predicting the risk is important to prevent the first attack and re-attack of cerebrovascular diseases by determining the medication. Although several statistical methods have been developed to assess the stroke risk in AF patients, considerable improvement is needed in predictive performance. We propose a machine learning-based approach based on the massive and complex Korean National Health Insurance (KNHIS) data. We extracted 72-dimensional features, including demographics, health examination, and medical history information, of 754,949 patients with AF from KNHIS. Logistic regression was used to determine whether the extracted features had a statistically significant association with stroke occurrence. Then, we constructed the stroke risk prediction model based on a deep neural network. The extracted features were used as input, and the occurrence of stroke after the diagnosis of AF was the output used to train the model. When the proposed deep learning model was applied to 150,989 AF patients, it was confirmed that stroke risk was predicted with high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. As part of preventive medicine, this study could help AF patients prepare for stroke prevention based on predicted stoke associated feature and risk scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: