↓ Skip to main content

Predicting two-year survival versus non-survival after first myocardial infarction using machine learning and Swedish national register data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting two-year survival versus non-survival after first myocardial infarction using machine learning and Swedish national register data
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0500-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Wallert, Mattia Tomasoni, Guy Madison, Claes Held

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms hold potential for improved prediction of all-cause mortality in cardiovascular patients, yet have not previously been developed with high-quality population data. This study compared four popular machine learning algorithms trained on unselected, nation-wide population data from Sweden to solve the binary classification problem of predicting survival versus non-survival 2 years after first myocardial infarction (MI). This prospective national registry study for prognostic accuracy validation of predictive models used data from 51,943 complete first MI cases as registered during 6 years (2006-2011) in the national quality register SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA (90% coverage of all MIs in Sweden) with follow-up in the Cause of Death register (> 99% coverage). Primary outcome was AUROC (C-statistic) performance of each model on the untouched test set (40% of cases) after model development on the training set (60% of cases) with the full (39) predictor set. Model AUROCs were bootstrapped and compared, correcting the P-values for multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni method. Secondary outcomes were derived when varying sample size (1-100% of total) and predictor sets (39, 10, and 5) for each model. Analyses were repeated on 79,869 completed cases after multivariable imputation of predictors. A Support Vector Machine with a radial basis kernel developed on 39 predictors had the highest complete cases performance on the test set (AUROC = 0.845, PPV = 0.280, NPV = 0.966) outperforming Boosted C5.0 (0.845 vs. 0.841, P = 0.028) but not significantly higher than Logistic Regression or Random Forest. Models converged to the point of algorithm indifference with increased sample size and predictors. Using the top five predictors also produced good classifiers. Imputed analyses had slightly higher performance. Improved mortality prediction at hospital discharge after first MI is important for identifying high-risk individuals eligible for intensified treatment and care. All models performed accurately and similarly and because of the superior national coverage, the best model can potentially be used to better differentiate new patients, allowing for improved targeting of limited resources. Future research should focus on further model development and investigate possibilities for implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Other 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Computer Science 18 16%
Engineering 7 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 37 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,272,897
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#559
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,814
of 314,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#13
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.