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
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major cause of mortality in the UK, prompting the need for improved risk predictive models for primary prevention. Machine learning (ML) models utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) offer potential enhancements over traditional risk scores like QRISK3 and ASCVD. To systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of ML models against conventional CVD risk prediction algorithms using EHR data for medium to long-term (5-10 years) CVD risk prediction. A systematic review and random-effect meta-analysis were conducted according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, assessing studies from 2010 to 2024. We retrieved 32 ML models and 26 conventional statistical models from 20 selected studies, focusing on performance metrics such as area under the curve (AUC) and heterogeneity across models. ML models, particularly random forest and deep learning, demonstrated superior performance, with the highest recorded pooled AUCs of 0.865 (95% CI: 0.812-0.917) and 0.847 (95% CI: 0.766-0.927), respectively. These significantly outperformed the conventional risk score of 0.765 (95% CI: 0.734-0.796). However, significant heterogeneity (I² > 99%) and potential publication bias were noted across the studies. While ML models show enhanced calibration for CVD risk, substantial variability and methodological concerns limit their current clinical applicability. Future research should address these issues by enhancing methodological transparency and standardization to improve the reliability and utility of these models in clinical settings. This study highlights the advanced capabilities of ML models in CVD risk prediction and emphasizes the need for rigorous validation to facilitate their integration into clinical practice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11750195 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztae080 | DOI Listing |