Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a fatal cardiovascular disease, yet missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis often occur due to non-specific symptoms and signs. A simple, objective technique will help clinicians make a quick and precise diagnosis. In population studies, machine learning (ML) plays a critical role in characterizing cardiovascular risks, predicting outcomes, and identifying biomarkers. This work sought to develop an ML model for helping APE diagnosis and compare it against current clinical probability assessment models.
Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study. Patients with suspected APE were continuously enrolled and randomly divided into two groups including training and testing sets. A total of 8 ML models, including random forest (RF), Naïve Bayes, decision tree, K-nearest neighbors, logistic regression, multi-layer perceptron, support vector machine, and gradient boosting decision tree were developed based on the training set to diagnose APE. Thereafter, the model with the best diagnostic performance was selected and evaluated against the current clinical assessment strategies, including the Wells score, revised Geneva score, and Years algorithm. Eventually, the ML model was internally validated to assess the diagnostic performance using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results: The ML models were constructed using eight clinical features, including D-dimer, cardiac troponin T (cTNT), arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, chest pain, lower limb pain, hemoptysis, and chronic heart failure. Among eight ML models, the RF model achieved the best performance with the highest area under the curve (AUC) (AUC = 0.774). Compared to the current clinical assessment strategies, the RF model outperformed the Wells score ( P = 0.030) and was not inferior to any other clinical probability assessment strategy. The AUC of the RF model for diagnosing APE onset in internal validation set was 0.726.
Conclusions: Based on RF algorithm, a novel prediction model was finally constructed for APE diagnosis. When compared to the current clinical assessment strategies, the RF model achieved better diagnostic efficacy and accuracy. Therefore, the ML algorithm can be a useful tool in assisting with the diagnosis of APE.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10950185 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002837 | DOI Listing |