Post-Analysis of Predictive Modeling with an Epidemiological Example

Post-analysis of predictive models fosters their application in practice, as domain experts want to understand the logic behind them. In epidemiology, methods explaining sophisticated models facilitate the usage of up-to-date tools, especially in the high-dimensional predictor space. Investigating how model performance varies for subjects with different conditions is one of the important parts of post-analysis. This paper presents a model-independent approach for post-analysis, aiming to reveal those subjects’ conditions that lead to low or high model performance, compared to the average level on the whole sample. Conditions of interest are presented in the form of rules generated by a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOGA). In this study, Lasso logistic regression (LLR) was trained to predict cardiovascular death by 2016 using the data from the 1984–1989 examination within the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study (KIHD), which contained 2682 subjects and 950 preselected predictors. After 50 independent runs of five-fold cross-validation, the model performance collected for each subject was used to generate rules describing “easy” and “difficult” cases. LLR with 61 selected predictors, on average, achieved 72.53% accuracy on the whole sample. However, during post-analysis, three categories of subjects were discovered: “Easy” cases with an LLR accuracy of 95.84%, “difficult” cases with an LLR accuracy of 48.11%, and the remaining cases with an LLR accuracy of 71.00%. Moreover, the rule analysis showed that medication was one of the main confusing factors that led to lower model performance. The proposed approach provides insightful information about subjects’ conditions that complicate predictive modeling.

Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Risk Factors, Prevention and Treatment

This review focuses on the issue of atrial fibrillation (AF) following coronary bypass surgery in patients with ischemic heart disease. Risk factors of this complication are discussed in detail. The authors addressed the effect of diabetes mellitus on development of postoperative AF. Data on current methods for prevention and treatment of AF are provided.

Evaluation of confounding in epidemiologic studies assessing alcohol consumption on the risk of ischemic heart disease

Background: Among different investigators studying the same exposures and outcomes, there may be a lack of consensus about potential confounders that should be considered as matching, adjustment, or stratification variables in observational studies. Concerns have been raised that confounding factors may affect the results obtained for the alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship, as well as their consistency and reproducibility across different studies. Therefore, we assessed how confounders are defined, operationalized, and discussed across individual studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk. Methods: For observational studies included in a recent alcohol-ischemic heart disease meta-analysis, we identified all variables adjusted, matched, or stratified for in the largest reported multivariate model (i.e. potential confounders). We recorded how the variables were measured and grouped them into higher-level confounder domains. Abstracts and Discussion sections were then assessed to determine whether authors considered confounding when interpreting their study findings. Results: 85 of 87 (97.7%) studies reported multivariate analyses for an alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship. The most common higher-level confounder domains included were smoking (79, 92.9%), age (74, 87.1%), and BMI, height, and/or weight (57, 67.1%). However, no two models adjusted, matched, or stratified for the same higher-level confounder domains. Most (74/87, 85.1%) articles mentioned or alluded to “confounding” in their Abstract or Discussion sections, but only one stated that their main findings were likely to be affected by residual confounding. There were five (5/87, 5.7%) authors that explicitly asked for caution when interpreting results. Conclusion: There is large variation in the confounders considered across observational studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk and almost all studies spuriously ignore or eventually dismiss confounding in their conclusions. Given that study results and interpretations may be affected by the mix of potential confounders included within multivariate models, efforts are necessary to standardize approaches for selecting and accounting for confounders in observational studies.

Evaluation of confounding in epidemiologic studies assessing alcohol consumption on the risk of ischemic heart disease

Background: Among different investigators studying the same exposures and outcomes, there may be a lack of consensus about potential confounders that should be considered as matching, adjustment, or stratification variables in observational studies. Concerns have been raised that confounding factors may affect the results obtained for the alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship, as well as their consistency and reproducibility across different studies. Therefore, we assessed how confounders are defined, operationalized, and discussed across individual studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk. Methods: For observational studies included in a recent alcohol-ischemic heart disease meta-analysis, we identified all variables adjusted, matched, or stratified for in the largest reported multivariate model (i.e. potential confounders). We recorded how the variables were measured and grouped them into higher-level confounder domains. Abstracts and Discussion sections were then assessed to determine whether authors considered confounding when interpreting their study findings. Results: 85 of 87 (97.7%) studies reported multivariate analyses for an alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship. The most common higher-level confounder domains included were smoking (79, 92.9%), age (74, 87.1%), and BMI, height, and/or weight (57, 67.1%). However, no two models adjusted, matched, or stratified for the same higher-level confounder domains. Most (74/87, 85.1%) articles mentioned or alluded to “confounding” in their Abstract or Discussion sections, but only one stated that their main findings were likely to be affected by residual confounding. There were five (5/87, 5.7%) authors that explicitly asked for caution when interpreting results. Conclusion: There is large variation in the confounders considered across observational studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk and almost all studies spuriously ignore or eventually dismiss confounding in their conclusions. Given that study results and interpretations may be affected by the mix of potential confounders included within multivariate models, efforts are necessary to standardize approaches for selecting and accounting for confounders in observational studies.

Evaluation of confounding in epidemiologic studies assessing alcohol consumption on the risk of ischemic heart disease

Background: Among different investigators studying the same exposures and outcomes, there may be a lack of consensus about potential confounders that should be considered as matching, adjustment, or stratification variables in observational studies. Concerns have been raised that confounding factors may affect the results obtained for the alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship, as well as their consistency and reproducibility across different studies. Therefore, we assessed how confounders are defined, operationalized, and discussed across individual studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk. Methods: For observational studies included in a recent alcohol-ischemic heart disease meta-analysis, we identified all variables adjusted, matched, or stratified for in the largest reported multivariate model (i.e. potential confounders). We recorded how the variables were measured and grouped them into higher-level confounder domains. Abstracts and Discussion sections were then assessed to determine whether authors considered confounding when interpreting their study findings. Results: 85 of 87 (97.7%) studies reported multivariate analyses for an alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship. The most common higher-level confounder domains included were smoking (79, 92.9%), age (74, 87.1%), and BMI, height, and/or weight (57, 67.1%). However, no two models adjusted, matched, or stratified for the same higher-level confounder domains. Most (74/87, 85.1%) articles mentioned or alluded to “confounding” in their Abstract or Discussion sections, but only one stated that their main findings were likely to be affected by residual confounding. There were five (5/87, 5.7%) authors that explicitly asked for caution when interpreting results. Conclusion: There is large variation in the confounders considered across observational studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk and almost all studies spuriously ignore or eventually dismiss confounding in their conclusions. Given that study results and interpretations may be affected by the mix of potential confounders included within multivariate models, efforts are necessary to standardize approaches for selecting and accounting for confounders in observational studies.

Seaweed intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: the Japan Public Health Center–based Prospective (JPHC) Study

ABSTRACT Background The minerals, vitamins, soluble dietary fibers, and flavonoids of seaweed are protective for preventing cardiovascular diseases. However, the association between seaweed intake and risk of cardiovascular disease has not been established. Objectives We examined the dietary intake of seaweed and its impact upon stroke and ischemic heart disease risk among a Japanese study population. Methods We surveyed 40,707 men and 45,406 women from 2 large cohorts (age range: 40–69 y). Seaweed intake was determined by FFQ at baseline (1990–1994). Incidences of stroke and ischemic heart disease were ascertained until the end of 2009 (Cohort I) or 2012 (Cohort II). Sex-specific cardiovascular disease HRs (95% CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models after stratification by area and adjustment for cardiovascular disease risk and dietary factors. Results During 1,493,232 person-years of follow-up, 4777 strokes (2863 ischemic stroke, 1361 intraparenchymal hemorrhages, and 531 subarachnoid hemorrhages) and 1204 ischemic heart disease cases were identified. Among men, significant multivariable HRs (95% CIs) for almost daily consumption compared with almost no consumption of seaweed were seen in ischemic heart disease [0.76 (0.58, 0.99); P-trend = 0.04] and total cardiovascular diseases [0.88 (0.78, 1.00); P-trend = 0.08]. Among women, such inverse associations were 0.56 (0.36, 0.85; P-trend = 0.006) for ischemic heart disease and 0.89 (0.76, 1.05; P-trend = 0.10) for total cardiovascular diseases. No significant associations were observed between seaweed intake and risk of total stroke or stroke types among either men or women. Conclusions Seaweed intake was inversely associated with risk of ischemic heart disease.

Evaluation of confounding in epidemiologic studies assessing alcohol consumption on the risk of ischemic heart disease: a cross-sectional analysis

Background: Among different investigators studying the same exposures and outcomes, there may be a lack of consensus about potential confounders that should be considered as matching, adjustment, or stratification variables in observational studies. Concerns have been raised that confounding factors may affect the results obtained for the alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship, as well as their consistency and reproducibility across different studies. Therefore, we assessed how confounders are defined, operationalized, and discussed across individual studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk. Methods: For observational studies included in a recent alcohol-ischemic heart disease meta-analysis, we identified all variables adjusted, matched, or stratified for in the largest reported multivariate model (i.e. potential confounders). We recorded how the variables were measured and grouped them into higher-level confounder domains. Abstracts and Discussion sections were then assessed to determine whether authors considered confounding when interpreting their study findings. Results: 85 of 87 (97.7%) studies reported multivariate analyses for an alcohol-ischemic heart disease relationship. The most common higher-level confounder domains included were smoking (79, 92.9%), age (74, 87.1%), and BMI, height, and/or weight (57, 67.1%). However, no two models adjusted, matched, or stratified for the same higher-level confounder domains. Most (74/87, 85.1%) articles mentioned or alluded to “confounding” in their Abstract or Discussion sections, but only one stated that their main findings were likely to be affected by residual confounding. There were five (5/87, 5.7%) authors that explicitly asked for caution when interpreting results. Conclusion: There is large variation in the confounders considered across observational studies evaluating alcohol and ischemic heart disease risk and almost all studies spuriously ignore or eventually dismiss confounding in their conclusions. Given that study results and interpretations may be affected by the mix of potential confounders included within multivariate models, efforts are necessary to standardize approaches for selecting and accounting for confounders in observational studies.