It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The pooled cohort equations (PCE) predict atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in patients with characteristics within prespecified ranges and has uncertain performance among Asians or Hispanics. It is unknown if machine learning (ML) models can improve ASCVD risk prediction across broader diverse, real-world populations. We developed ML models for ASCVD risk prediction for multi-ethnic patients using an electronic health record (EHR) database from Northern California. Our cohort included patients aged 18 years or older with no prior CVD and not on statins at baseline (n = 262,923), stratified by PCE-eligible (n = 131,721) or PCE-ineligible patients based on missing or out-of-range variables. We trained ML models [logistic regression with L2 penalty and L1 lasso penalty, random forest, gradient boosting machine (GBM), extreme gradient boosting] and determined 5-year ASCVD risk prediction, including with and without incorporation of additional EHR variables, and in Asian and Hispanic subgroups. A total of 4309 patients had ASCVD events, with 2077 in PCE-ineligible patients. GBM performance in the full cohort, including PCE-ineligible patients (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.835, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.825–0.846), was significantly better than that of the PCE in the PCE-eligible cohort (AUC 0.775, 95% CI: 0.755–0.794). Among patients aged 40–79, GBM performed similarly before (AUC 0.784, 95% CI: 0.759–0.808) and after (AUC 0.790, 95% CI: 0.765–0.814) incorporating additional EHR data. Overall, ML models achieved comparable or improved performance compared to the PCE while allowing risk discrimination in a larger group of patients including PCE-ineligible patients. EHR-trained ML models may help bridge important gaps in ASCVD risk prediction.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 Stanford University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
2 Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
3 Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, USA (GRID:grid.416759.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0460 3124); Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
4 Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, USA (GRID:grid.416759.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0460 3124)
5 Stanford University School of Engineering, Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956); Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)