Key result
Machine learning models applying random under-sampling outperformed those without for predicting in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients (average G-mean 80.54% vs 23.31% using the full feature set).
Why the study?
This study aimed to optimize machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction.
Does applying random under-sampling to machine learning models improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI?
Observational (n=5,708)
Does applying random under-sampling to machine learning models improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI?
Absolute Event Rate: 80.54% vs 23.31%
Machine learning models optimized with random under-sampling, even when using only variables available prior to reperfusion therapy, can accurately predict in-hospital mortality in high-risk STEMI patients.
ML models may aid STEMI mortality prediction; leaves open need for external validation before clinical use.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to optimize machine learning (ML) models for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 5708 STEMI patients were enrolled and divided into two groups according to patients' hospital outcomes. Both groups were randomly split into a training set (75%) and a testing set (25%). Four ML models were trained with data, which applied random under-sampling (RUS). The performance of optimized ML models was evaluated with respect to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, G-mean and AUC. Two sets of features in chronological order were considered: a full set that included all variables during hospitalization and a simplified set that only included variables prior to reperfusion therapy, and the performance of the prediction models trained with these two sets of features was compared. RESULTS: For the comprehensive metric - G-mean, the models trained with RUS outperformed those without, 80.54% vs 23.31% on average in the full set and 75.72% vs 35.76% on average in the simplified set. For models trained with the full set, the SVM achieved the best performance with 85.62% accuracy, 84.21% sensitivity, 85.66% specificity, 84.93% G-mean and 0.919 AUC. For models trained with the simplified set, the SVM achieved 83.48% G-mean, which was comparable to the models trained using the full set. For the most critical metric - sensitivity, the SVM trained using the simplified set achieved 89.47%, which even exceed the SVM (84.21%), DT (81.58%) and RF (81.58%) trained using the full set. CONCLUSION: Applying RUS can improve the performance of prediction models, and the models trained with simplified set, which only included variables prior to reperfusion therapy can accurately predict high-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2021) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=5,708). Machine learning models with random under-sampling (RUS) vs. Models without random under-sampling was evaluated on G-mean for predicting in-hospital mortality (full feature set). Machine learning models applying random under-sampling outperformed those without for predicting in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients (average G-mean 80.54% vs 23.31% using the full feature set).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: