Cardiovascular disease risk prediction using automated machine learning: A prospective study of 423,604 UK Biobank participants

Ahmed M Alaa, Thomas Bolton, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, James H F Rudd and Mihaela van der Schaar

PLOS ONE, 2019, vol. 14, issue 5, 1-17

Abstract: Background: Identifying people at risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is a cornerstone of preventative cardiology. Risk prediction models currently recommended by clinical guidelines are typically based on a limited number of predictors with sub-optimal performance across all patient groups. Data-driven techniques based on machine learning (ML) might improve the performance of risk predictions by agnostically discovering novel risk predictors and learning the complex interactions between them. We tested (1) whether ML techniques based on a state-of-the-art automated ML framework (AutoPrognosis) could improve CVD risk prediction compared to traditional approaches, and (2) whether considering non-traditional variables could increase the accuracy of CVD risk predictions. Methods and findings: Using data on 423,604 participants without CVD at baseline in UK Biobank, we developed a ML-based model for predicting CVD risk based on 473 available variables. Our ML-based model was derived using AutoPrognosis, an algorithmic tool that automatically selects and tunes ensembles of ML modeling pipelines (comprising data imputation, feature processing, classification and calibration algorithms). We compared our model with a well-established risk prediction algorithm based on conventional CVD risk factors (Framingham score), a Cox proportional hazards (PH) model based on familiar risk factors (i.e, age, gender, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, reception of treatments for hypertension and body mass index), and a Cox PH model based on all of the 473 available variables. Predictive performances were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Overall, our AutoPrognosis model improved risk prediction (AUC-ROC: 0.774, 95% CI: 0.768-0.780) compared to Framingham score (AUC-ROC: 0.724, 95% CI: 0.720-0.728, p

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213653 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 13653&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0213653

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213653

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().