Comment and Update on “Using Artificial Intelligence to Manage Thrombosis Research, Diagnosis, and Clinical Management”

We recently read the interesting article entitled: “Using Artificial Intelligence to Manage Thrombosis Research, Diagnosis, and Clinical Management” by Mishra and Ashraf.[ 1 ] In this paper, the authors reviewed the most recent application of several artificial intelligence (AI) methods for thromboembolism prediction. The authors started their paper explaining AI theory and the potential of AI methods in compiling observational data and recognizing patterns hidden behind large amount of data, which can be impossible for the human brain to process. Then, they reviewed some important studies concerning the prediction of myocardial infarction, the therapeutic dose estimation, and clinical application of robotics in thrombosis. The authors concluded their analysis by presenting some limitations and perspectives of AI application on clinical data. The intent of this letter is to update the readership of this journal on applications of AI in thrombosis prediction, and thus extends on the report of Mishra and Ashraf.[ 1 ] Mishra and Ashraf[ 1 ] referenced a study performed by our group entitled: “Artificial neural network for prediction of venous thrombosis recurrence.” This study was presented at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting at 2016.[ 2 ] It was the first report in the literature regarding an artificial neural network (ANN) model to predict the recurrence of venous thromboembolism (RVTE). We considered 44 independent factors as inputs, which included patient and clinical data, and the results showed that it was possible to obtain an accurate ANN model to predict RVTE, also highlighting that this was a promising field to explore. Over the last years, we have improved this model and obtained a more comprehensive view of the ANN potential for its use in such predictions. The first observation was the high number of inputs, which could make the use of such ANN difficult in practice. Thus, we performed a study to identify which inputs represented the most important factors to predict RVTE through principal component analysis (PCA).[ 3 ] In this paper, we reported that among all the independent factors considered, 18 are sufficient to mathematically predict RVTE. The important factors included blood cells, lipids, coagulation protein levels, age, as well as previous VTE parameters. This was an important step, since it showed that parameters that are simple to obtain could be promising in the development of new prediction models. In an upcoming issue of International Journal of Medical Informatics, we proposed an association between PCA and ANN modeling which is not commonly used in health studies. Also, we presented three new ANN models for RVTE prediction.[ 4 ] The difference among the three models relies on its inputs: ANN 1: all the 39 factors considered in the previous study[ 3 ]; ANN 2: the 18 most important factors determined by PCA[ 3 ]; ANN 3: 15 factors combining PCA results and practical aspects, which excluded anticoagulant treatment duration, protein C, protein S, and antithrombin from the inputs of ANN 2, and included the factor: provoked/unprovoked. The development of the third model aimed to obtain the most simplified model possible to predict RVTE, which would make its application much easier. We performed a comprehensive search for the best ANN model, including comparison among learning optimization algorithms, number of hidden layers, and number of units in each hidden layer. We also performed another importance analysis of each input factor by using a weight method.[ 5 ] The criterion to choose the best model was higher accuracy, area under the curve, fivefold cross-validation performance, and layer saturation—which is very important since it is a direct measurement of the ANN generalization capacity. The results showed that it was possible to obtain an accurate model for each input set, with accuracies above 92%. The third and simplest ANN model presented an accuracy of 97% for validation + test dataset, and the cross-validation runs showed that its prediction capability was not affected by considering different training dataset. This study showed that the association of multivariate techniques and AI is very promising and can be explored to develop new models in healthy studies. Recently, we also reported another study to identify the effect of independent factors on RVTE by using designs of experiments (DoE) techniques.[ 6 ] DoE is a statistic tool that performs sensitivity analysis of input variables or of model parameters. It is an interesting technique that does not require new observational data and can be applied by using fitted mathematical models. In this work, the ANN 1 from the previous work was used[ 4 ] (i.e., considered all the input factors) to compute the effect of each variable. When analyzing the results obtained by the three techniques (PCA,[ 3 ] weight analysis,[ 4 ] DoE[ 6 ]), we observed that several factors appeared repeatedly. White blood cells, red blood cells, age, protein S, and D-dimer were identified as important by all three techniques. This is an important outcome, since it shows that an unsupervised method, such as PCA, can be a reliable tool for preprocessing inputs before the development of new predictive methods. Despite the new results obtained by our group, some interesting papers published in later 2019 and 2020 showed new important conclusions, which should be highlighted. [ Table 1 ] summarizes the most important features of each new paper published in the field.