Back to Authors

Sharma, Umesh M

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 1

Development and internal validation of machine learning–based models and external validation of existing risk scores for outcome prediction in patients with ischaemic stroke
Axford, Daniel, Sohel, Ferdous , Zhu, Ye , Zand, Ramin , Barkoudah, Ebrahim , Krupica, Troy, Iheasirim, Kingsley, Bhagra, Sumit , Saposnik, Gustavo , Yousufuddin, Mohammed , Sharma, Umesh M., Takahashi, Paul , Murad, Mohammad H, Yousufuddin, Mohammed , Zand, Ramin , Abedi, Vida , Sharma, Umesh M, Dugani, Sagar B. , Takahashi, Paul Y. , Murad, M. Hassan

European Heart Journal - Digital Health | November 22, 2023 | Volume: 5 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 109-122

10.1093/ehjdh/ztad073 Get It

Abstract Aims We developed new machine learning (ML) models and externally validated existing statistical models [ischaemic stroke predictive risk score (iScore) and totalled health risks in vascular events (THRIVE) scores] for predicting the composite of recurrent stroke or all-cause mortality at 90 days and at 3 years after hospitalization for first acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Methods and results In adults hospitalized with AIS from January 2005 to November 2016, with follow-up until November 2019, we developed three ML models [random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBOOST)] and externally validated the iScore and THRIVE scores for predicting the composite outcomes after AIS hospitalization, using data from 721 patients and 90 potential predictor variables. At 90 days and 3 years, 11 and 34% of patients, respectively, reached the composite outcome. For the 90-day prediction, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.779 for RF, 0.771 for SVM, 0.772 for XGBOOST, 0.720 for iScore, and 0.664 for THRIVE. For 3-year prediction, the AUC was 0.743 for RF, 0.777 for SVM, 0.773 for XGBOOST, 0.710 for iScore, and 0.675 for THRIVE. Conclusion The study provided three ML-based predictive models that achieved good discrimination and clinical usefulness in outcome prediction after AIS and broadened the application of the iScore and THRIVE scoring system for long-term outcome prediction. Our findings warrant comparative analyses of ML and existing statistical method–based risk prediction tools for outcome prediction after AIS in new data sets.