Machine learning versus logistic regression for permanent pacemaker implantation prediction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has improved clinical management of aortic valve disease. Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains the main complication associated with TAVR. We have conducted a study-level meta-analysis which compares logistic regression (LR) models with machine learning (ML) models to predict the association between peri-procedural risk factors and PPI in patients who underwent TAVR. Methods: We included three studies reporting PPI after TAVR as primary outcome comparing ML and LR models’ predictive ability. Model performance was primarily assessed in terms of discrimination ability for PPI prediction. The retrieved estimates of C-statistic for ML and LR models were summarized into a weighted average. A Bayesian estimation framework was utilized to calculate the meta-analytic estimates. Pooled C-statistics (PCS) and 95% credibility interval (CI) were calculated, and the overall accuracy was presented as net benefit. As a sensitivity analysis, the main comparison was performed excluding derivation models and models with extremely reduced accuracy levels. Results: No significant difference was noticed in the predictive accuracy between ML and LR models (ML PCS =0.72, 0.63–0.81 vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.50–0.78, net benefit: +8.0%, P=0.34). The sensitive analysis showed no significant difference excluding the derivation model from Tsushima and 1 year model from Agasthi (ML PCS =0.72, 0.51–0.92, vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.43–0.88, net benefit: +8.0%, P=0.60); and also no significant difference excluding derivation model from Tsushima and the 30 days model from Agasthi (ML PCS =0.74, 0.57–0.90 vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.42–0.88, net benefit: +10.0%, P=0.28). Conclusions: Despite showing a higher net benefit, ML models do not perform significantly better than LR models in predicting the association between peri-procedural risk factors and PPI after TAVR.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21037/jmai-23-162
Primary Topic
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine learning versus logistic regression for permanent pacemaker implantation prediction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gianmarco Cancelli, Arnaldo Dimagli, Mohamed Rahouma, Giovanni Soletti et al.
Journal of Medical Artificial Intelligence
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
article

Machine learning versus logistic regression for permanent pacemaker implantation prediction after transcatheter aortic valve replacement—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gianmarco Cancelli, Arnaldo Dimagli, Mohamed Rahouma, Giovanni Soletti, Túlio Caldonazo, Mudathir Ibrahim, Lamia Harik, Jef Van den Eynde, Jordan Leith, Michelle Demetres, Mario Gaudino, Michele Dell’Aquila, Camilla S Rossi
article en

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has improved clinical management of aortic valve disease. Postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) remains the main complication associated with TAVR. We have conducted a study-level meta-analysis which compares logistic regression (LR) models with machine learning (ML) models to predict the association between peri-procedural risk factors and PPI in patients who underwent TAVR. Methods: We included three studies reporting PPI after TAVR as primary outcome comparing ML and LR models’ predictive ability. Model performance was primarily assessed in terms of discrimination ability for PPI prediction. The retrieved estimates of C-statistic for ML and LR models were summarized into a weighted average. A Bayesian estimation framework was utilized to calculate the meta-analytic estimates. Pooled C-statistics (PCS) and 95% credibility interval (CI) were calculated, and the overall accuracy was presented as net benefit. As a sensitivity analysis, the main comparison was performed excluding derivation models and models with extremely reduced accuracy levels. Results: No significant difference was noticed in the predictive accuracy between ML and LR models (ML PCS =0.72, 0.63–0.81 vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.50–0.78, net benefit: +8.0%, P=0.34). The sensitive analysis showed no significant difference excluding the derivation model from Tsushima and 1 year model from Agasthi (ML PCS =0.72, 0.51–0.92, vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.43–0.88, net benefit: +8.0%, P=0.60); and also no significant difference excluding derivation model from Tsushima and the 30 days model from Agasthi (ML PCS =0.74, 0.57–0.90 vs. LR PCS =0.64, 0.42–0.88, net benefit: +10.0%, P=0.28). Conclusions: Despite showing a higher net benefit, ML models do not perform significantly better than LR models in predicting the association between peri-procedural risk factors and PPI after TAVR.

Journal of Medical Artificial IntelligenceVol. 7
Maimonides Medical Center (US), Cornell University (US), Weill Cornell Medicine (US), Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE), KU Leuven (BE)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.