ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2022
Ultrafast pulse wave velocity and ensemble learning to predict atherosclerosis risk.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pulse wave velocity (PWV) can evaluate potential atherosclerosis (AS) and ultrafast pulse wave velocity (ufPWV) is a new technique to accurately assess PWV. However, few studies have examined the predictive value of ufPWV for AS risk. We aimed to establish a classification model for AS risk diagnosis based on ufPWV, so that AS can be diagnosed and prevented in advance. We collected imaging data, as well as clinical and laboratory data. A total of 613 patients with 20 attributes were admitted in this study. There were 392 patients with hyperlipidemia (AS risk group) and 221 healthy adults as the control group. In order to build AS risk prediction models, we considered decision tree, five different ensemble learning (EL) models [random forest (RF), adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and light gradient boosting machine (LGBM)] and two different feature selection methods [statistical analysis and RF]. Accuracy and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used as the main criterion for model evaluation. In the prediction of AS risk with statistical analysis as the feature selection method, the performances of XGBoost (accuracy: 0.851; AUC: 0.884) and RF (accuracy: 0.844; AUC: 0.889) were better than other models. Besides, in the prediction of AS risk with RF as the feature selection method, the performances of LGBM (accuracy: 0.870; AUC: 0.903) and XGBoost (accuracy: 0.857; AUC: 0.903) were better than other models. In conclusions, EL models with RF as the feature selection method might provide accurate results in predicting AS risk. Besides, ufPWV, especially PWV of left common carotid artery at the end of systole, was an important feature in the AS risk prediction models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.