Long-Term Hypertension Risk Prediction with ML Techniques in ELSA Database

Author(s):  
Elias Dritsas ◽  
Nikos Fazakis ◽  
Otilia Kocsis ◽  
Nikos Fakotakis ◽  
Konstantinos Moustakas
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Helmersson-Karlqvist ◽  
Miklos Lipcsey ◽  
Johan Ärnlöv ◽  
Max Bell ◽  
Bo Ravn ◽  
...  

AbstractDecreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is linked to poor survival. The predictive value of creatinine estimated GFR (eGFR) and cystatin C eGFR in critically ill patients may differ substantially, but has been less studied. This study compares long-term mortality risk prediction by eGFR using a creatinine equation (CKD-EPI), a cystatin C equation (CAPA) and a combined creatinine/cystatin C equation (CKD-EPI), in 22,488 patients treated in intensive care at three University Hospitals in Sweden, between 2004 and 2015. Patients were analysed for both creatinine and cystatin C on the same blood sample tube at admission, using accredited laboratory methods. During follow-up (median 5.1 years) 8401 (37%) patients died. Reduced eGFR was significantly associated with death by all eGFR-equations in Cox regression models. However, patients reclassified to a lower GFR-category by using the cystatin C-based equation, as compared to the creatinine-based equation, had significantly higher mortality risk compared to the referent patients not reclassified. The cystatin C equation increased C-statistics for death prediction (p < 0.001 vs. creatinine, p = 0.013 vs. combined equation). In conclusion, this data favours the sole cystatin C equation rather than the creatinine or combined equations when estimating GFR for risk prediction purposes in critically ill patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikos Fazakis ◽  
Elias Dritsas ◽  
Otilia Kocsis ◽  
Nikos Fakotakis ◽  
Konstantinos Moustakas

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huanhuan Zhao ◽  
Xiaoyu Zhang ◽  
Yang Xu ◽  
Lisheng Gao ◽  
Zuchang Ma ◽  
...  

Hypertension is a widespread chronic disease. Risk prediction of hypertension is an intervention that contributes to the early prevention and management of hypertension. The implementation of such intervention requires an effective and easy-to-implement hypertension risk prediction model. This study evaluated and compared the performance of four machine learning algorithms on predicting the risk of hypertension based on easy-to-collect risk factors. A dataset of 29,700 samples collected through a physical examination was used for model training and testing. Firstly, we identified easy-to-collect risk factors of hypertension, through univariate logistic regression analysis. Then, based on the selected features, 10-fold cross-validation was utilized to optimize four models, random forest (RF), CatBoost, MLP neural network and logistic regression (LR), to find the best hyper-parameters on the training set. Finally, the performance of models was evaluated by AUC, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity on the test set. The experimental results showed that the RF model outperformed the other three models, and achieved an AUC of 0.92, an accuracy of 0.82, a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.81. In addition, Body Mass Index (BMI), age, family history and waist circumference (WC) are the four primary risk factors of hypertension. These findings reveal that it is feasible to use machine learning algorithms, especially RF, to predict hypertension risk without clinical or genetic data. The technique can provide a non-invasive and economical way for the prevention and management of hypertension in a large population.


Author(s):  
José Miguel Rivera‐Caravaca ◽  
Vanessa Roldán ◽  
María Asunción Esteve‐Pastor ◽  
Mariano Valdés ◽  
Vicente Vicente ◽  
...  

JAMA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 326 (21) ◽  
pp. 2120
Author(s):  
Anita Slomski

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin ten Haaf ◽  
Mehrad Bastani ◽  
Pianpian Cao ◽  
Jihyoun Jeon ◽  
Iakovos Toumazis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Risk-prediction models have been proposed to select individuals for lung cancer screening. However, their long-term effects are uncertain. This study evaluates long-term benefits and harms of risk-based screening compared with current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. Methods Four independent natural history models were used to perform a comparative modeling study evaluating long-term benefits and harms of selecting individuals for lung cancer screening through risk-prediction models. In total, 363 risk-based screening strategies varying by screening starting and stopping age, risk-prediction model used for eligibility (Bach, PLCOm2012, or Lung Cancer Death Risk Assessment Tool [LCDRAT]), and risk threshold were evaluated for a 1950 US birth cohort. Among the evaluated outcomes were percentage of individuals ever screened, screens required, lung cancer deaths averted, life-years gained, and overdiagnosis. Results Risk-based screening strategies requiring similar screens among individuals ages 55–80 years as the USPSTF criteria (corresponding risk thresholds: Bach = 2.8%; PLCOm2012 = 1.7%; LCDRAT = 1.7%) averted considerably more lung cancer deaths (Bach = 693; PLCOm2012 = 698; LCDRAT = 696; USPSTF = 613). However, life-years gained were only modestly higher (Bach = 8660; PLCOm2012 = 8862; LCDRAT = 8631; USPSTF = 8590), and risk-based strategies had more overdiagnosed cases (Bach = 149; PLCOm2012 = 147; LCDRAT = 150; USPSTF = 115). Sensitivity analyses suggest excluding individuals with limited life expectancies (&lt;5 years) from screening retains the life-years gained by risk-based screening, while reducing overdiagnosis by more than 65.3%. Conclusions Risk-based lung cancer screening strategies prevent considerably more lung cancer deaths than current recommendations do. However, they yield modest additional life-years and increased overdiagnosis because of predominantly selecting older individuals. Efficient implementation of risk-based lung cancer screening requires careful consideration of life expectancy for determining optimal individual stopping ages.


2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (2-9) ◽  
pp. 707-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Walker ◽  
P.H. Stokes ◽  
J.E. Wilkinson ◽  
G.G. Swinerd

Author(s):  
Megan A. Clarke ◽  
Barbara Fetterman ◽  
Mark Schiffman ◽  
Philip E. Castle ◽  
Eric Stiemerling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document