» Articles » PMID: 37190736

Data Modeling Using Vital Sign Dynamics for In-hospital Mortality Classification in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Overview
Date 2023 May 16
PMID 37190736
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: This study compared feature selection by machine learning or expert recommendation in the performance of classification models for in-hospital mortality among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: recursive feature elimination with cross-validation (RFECV) and selection by interventional cardiologists. We used five simple models: support vector machine (SVM), random forest, decision tree, logistic regression, and artificial neural network. The performance metrics were accuracy, recall, and the false-negative rate, measured with 10-fold cross-validation in the training set and validated in the test set.

Results: Patients' mean age was 66.22 ± 12.88 years, and 33.63% had ST-elevation ACS. Fifteen of 34 features were selected as important with the RFECV method, while the experts chose 11 features. All models with feature selection by RFECV had higher accuracy than the models with expert-chosen features. In the training set, the random forest model had the highest accuracy (0.96 ± 0.01) and recall (0.97 ± 0.02). After validation in the test set, the SVM model displayed the highest accuracy (0.81) and a recall of 0.61.

Conclusions: Models with feature selection by RFECV had higher accuracy than those with feature selection by experts in identifying patients with ACS at high risk for in-hospital mortality.

References
1.
Pitsavos C, Kourlaba G, Kurlaba G, Panagiotakos D, Kogias Y, Mantas Y . Association of creatinine clearance and in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the GREECS study. Circ J. 2006; 71(1):9-14. DOI: 10.1253/circj.71.9. View

2.
Goldhill D, McNarry A, Mandersloot G, McGinley A . A physiologically-based early warning score for ward patients: the association between score and outcome. Anaesthesia. 2005; 60(6):547-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2005.04186.x. View

3.
Bittl J . Percutaneous coronary interventions in the diabetic patient: where do we stand?. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(4):e001944. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001944. View

4.
Dai Y, Yang J, Gao Z, Xu H, Sun Y, Wu Y . Atrial fibrillation in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: analysis of the china acute myocardial infarction (CAMI) registry. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017; 17(1):2. PMC: 5210261. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-016-0442-9. View

5.
Srimahachota S, Boonyaratavej S, Kanjanavanit R, Sritara P, Krittayaphong R, Kunjara-Na-Ayudhya R . Thai Registry in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACS)--an extension of Thai Acute Coronary Syndrome registry (TACS) group: lower in-hospital but still high mortality at one-year. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95(4):508-18. View