Can Machine-learning Improve Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Using Routine Clinical Data?
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Current approaches to predict cardiovascular risk fail to identify many people who would benefit from preventive treatment, while others receive unnecessary intervention. Machine-learning offers opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors. We assessed whether machine-learning can improve cardiovascular risk prediction.
Methods: Prospective cohort study using routine clinical data of 378,256 patients from UK family practices, free from cardiovascular disease at outset. Four machine-learning algorithms (random forest, logistic regression, gradient boosting machines, neural networks) were compared to an established algorithm (American College of Cardiology guidelines) to predict first cardiovascular event over 10-years. Predictive accuracy was assessed by area under the 'receiver operating curve' (AUC); and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) to predict 7.5% cardiovascular risk (threshold for initiating statins).
Findings: 24,970 incident cardiovascular events (6.6%) occurred. Compared to the established risk prediction algorithm (AUC 0.728, 95% CI 0.723-0.735), machine-learning algorithms improved prediction: random forest +1.7% (AUC 0.745, 95% CI 0.739-0.750), logistic regression +3.2% (AUC 0.760, 95% CI 0.755-0.766), gradient boosting +3.3% (AUC 0.761, 95% CI 0.755-0.766), neural networks +3.6% (AUC 0.764, 95% CI 0.759-0.769). The highest achieving (neural networks) algorithm predicted 4,998/7,404 cases (sensitivity 67.5%, PPV 18.4%) and 53,458/75,585 non-cases (specificity 70.7%, NPV 95.7%), correctly predicting 355 (+7.6%) more patients who developed cardiovascular disease compared to the established algorithm.
Conclusions: Machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others.
Afrifa-Yamoah E, Adua E, Peprah-Yamoah E, Anto E, Opoku-Yamoah V, Acheampong E Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2025; 11(1):1-21.
PMID: 40051825 PMC: 11880127. DOI: 10.1002/cdt3.137.
Current Status and Future of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.
Basubrin O Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77561.
PMID: 39958114 PMC: 11830112. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77561.
Liu T, Krentz A, Lu L, Curcin V Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2025; 6(1):7-22.
PMID: 39846062 PMC: 11750195. DOI: 10.1093/ehjdh/ztae080.
Mettananda C, Solangaarachchige M, Haddela P, Dassanayake A, Kasturiratne A, Wickremasinghe R BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e081434.
PMID: 39819943 PMC: 11751841. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081434.
Issues and Limitations on the Road to Fair and Inclusive AI Solutions for Biomedical Challenges.
Faust O, Salvi M, Barua P, Chakraborty S, Molinari F, Rajendra Acharya U Sensors (Basel). 2025; 25(1.
PMID: 39796996 PMC: 11723364. DOI: 10.3390/s25010205.