Machine learning using signal analysis of echocardiographic strain and TDI curves improved 5-year prediction of heart failure or CV death over conventional parameters (AUC 0.790 vs 0.721; P=0.031).
Cohort (n=3,505)
Yes
Does applying machine learning to echocardiographic strain and TDI curves improve the prediction of incident heart failure or cardiovascular death compared to conventional echocardiographic parameters?
Applying machine learning to echocardiographic strain and TDI curves modestly improves the 5-year prediction of incident heart failure or cardiovascular death compared to conventional echocardiographic parameters.
Effect estimate: AUC 0.790 (95% CI 0.730-0.850)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.79% vs 0.721%
p-value: p=0.031
BackgroundMany patterns from the entire strain and TDI curves remain uninvestigated. ObjectivesWe investigated whether applying signal analysis with supervised machine learning (ML) to strain and TDI curves would improve the prediction of heart failure (HF) or cardiovascular death (CV death) compared with conventional echocardiographic parameters, and whether it would reveal previously unrecognized prognostic signal-derived parameters. MethodsIn total, 744 novel signal-analytical parameters extracted from 18 strain curves and 6 TDI curves were evaluated using ML and compared with a baseline ML model trained on 17 conventional echocardiographic parameters.The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint of incident HF or CV death within five years. ResultsThe analysis included 2,589 subjects from the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS) for training the ML model and 916 subjects from the LOOP Study for external testing.In total, 126 subjects (4.9%) met the primary endpoint in CCHS, whereas 59 subjects (6.4%) met the primary endpoint in the LOOP Study.The models incorporating signal analysis, both standalone and combined with conventional parameters, significantly increased discrimination compared to the baseline model based on conventional parameters in the external test cohort (Baseline model: AUC 0.721, CI 0.639:0.802vs. signal analytical model: AUC 0.790, CI 0.730:0.850,p = 0.031 and combined model: AUC 0.788, CI 0.727:0.849,p = 0.021). ConclusionA ML model based on signal analysis of strain and TDI curves from echocardiographic examinations modestly improved 5-year discrimination for incident HF or CV death compared to a model based on conventional echocardiographic parameters.
Simonsen et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure and cardiovascular death (n=3,505). Machine learning model based on signal analysis of strain and TDI curves vs. Baseline ML model trained on 17 conventional echocardiographic parameters was evaluated on Combined endpoint of incident heart failure or cardiovascular death within five years (AUC 0.790, 95% CI 0.730-0.850, p=0.031). Machine learning using signal analysis of echocardiographic strain and TDI curves improved 5-year prediction of heart failure or CV death over conventional parameters (AUC 0.790 vs 0.721; P=0.031).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: