Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Advanced age and increasing comorbidities complicate the differentiation between group 1 and 2 pulmonary hypertension (PH) and increase the number of unnecessary right heart catheterizations. Therefore, a machine learning (ML) predictive model was developed to diagnose group 2 PH using 20 non-invasive parameters. We aimed to validate its performance in the PVDOMICS cohort. We extracted the required parameters from the eligible group 1 and 2 PH patients to perform the ML prediction. The results were compared to the registered diagnosis in the database, as well as the haemodynamic diagnosis based on the 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for PH. The PVDOMICS cohort included 174 group 1 and 216 group 2 PH patients. According to the registered diagnosis, the diagnostic model identified group 2 PH with a specificity of 93%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 92%, and sensitivity of 67%. Accuracy was higher in patients with mPAP ≥25 mmHg, with a PPV of 93% for a sensitivity of 71%. According to the haemodynamic diagnosis, the model had a specificity of 95% and PPV of 97% for a sensitivity of 54%. The few group 1 patients inaccurately diagnosed as group 2 had remarkably many characteristics consistent with group 2 PH. Applied to this US cohort, the ML model had a slightly lower accuracy compared to the Belgian development and validation cohorts, which could be related to a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in the US cohort. The specificity and PPV of the model encourage further prospective validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hardy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: