Explainable machine learning for estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure: a multicenter validation
View Full PaperWhy the study?
Does an explainable machine learning model improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to guideline-recommended algorithms in patients undergoing echocardiography and right heart catheterization?
Population
956 patients who underwent echocardiography and right heart catheterization at three hospitals within a…
Comparison
Explainable machine learning models using… vs Guideline-recommended algorithms (GL-algorithm).
Design
Cohort
Key result
Explainable machine learning models significantly outperformed guideline-recommended algorithms in estimating elevated left ventricular filling pressure (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.72; p=0.016).
Authors
Loading...
Explainable ML may aid LVFP estimation when guidelines are indeterminate; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Observational (n=956)
Yes
Does an explainable machine learning model improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to guideline-recommended algorithms in patients undergoing echocardiography and right heart catheterization?
Explainable machine learning models using echocardiographic parameters significantly improve the estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure compared to conventional guideline algorithms, while providing patient-level interpretability.
Effect estimate: AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.91)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.83% vs 0.72%
p-value: p=0.016
Nakamura et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elevated left ventricular filling pressure (n=956). Explainable machine learning models (XGBoost) vs. Guideline-recommended algorithms was evaluated on Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for elevated LVFP (PAWP ≥ 18 mmHg) (AUROC 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, p=0.016). Explainable machine learning models significantly outperformed guideline-recommended algorithms in estimating elevated left ventricular filling pressure (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.72; p=0.016).