Key result
Non-linear survival gradient boosting improves incident HF prediction over linear models.
Why the study?
Improving early risk stratification for primary prevention of heart failure may require advanced computational methods such as machine learning to capture complex individual patterns in large data.
Do multi-center machine learning models improve predictive performance for incident heart failure compared to single-center and traditional linear models?
Observational (n=30,354)
Yes
Do multi-center machine learning models improve predictive performance for incident heart failure compared to single-center and traditional linear models?
Multi-center machine learning models, particularly stacking methods, significantly improve the prediction of incident heart failure compared to traditional single-center linear models.
Objective: To mitigate the burden associated with heart failure (HF), primary prevention is of the utmost importance. To improve early risk stratification, advanced computational methods such as machine learning (ML) capturing complex individual patterns in large data might be necessary. Therefore, we compared the predictive performance of incident HF risk models in terms of (a) flexible ML models and linear models and (b) models trained on a single cohort (single-center) and on multiple heterogeneous cohorts (multi-center). Design and methods: In our analysis, we used the meta-data consisting of 30,354 individuals from 6 cohorts. During a median follow-up of 5.40 years, 1,068 individuals experienced a non-fatal HF event. We evaluated the predictive performance of survival gradient boosting (SGB), CoxNet, the PCP-HF risk score, and a stacking method. Predictions were obtained iteratively, in each iteration one cohort serving as an external test set and either one or all remaining cohorts as a training set (single- or multi-center, respectively). Results: Overall, multi-center models systematically outperformed single-center models. Further, c-index in the pooled population was higher in SGB (0.735) than in CoxNet (0.694). In the precision-recall (PR) analysis for predicting 10-year HF risk, the stacking method, combining the SGB, CoxNet, Gaussian mixture and PCP-HF models, outperformed other models with PR/AUC 0.804, while PCP-HF achieved only 0.551. Conclusion: With a greater number and variety of training cohorts, the model learns a wider range of specific individual health characteristics. Flexible ML algorithms can be used to capture these diverse distributions and produce more precise prediction models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabovčik et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Incident heart failure (n=30,354). Survival gradient boosting (SGB) machine learning model vs. Linear Cox proportional hazard model (CoxNet) was evaluated on c-index for incident non-fatal heart failure (p=<0.0001). A non-linear survival gradient boosting machine learning model significantly improved the prediction of incident heart failure compared to a linear CoxNet model (c-index 0.735 vs 0.694, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: