↓ Skip to main content

Value of machine learning in predicting TAVI outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Netherlands Heart Journal, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Value of machine learning in predicting TAVI outcomes
Published in
Netherlands Heart Journal, May 2019
DOI 10.1007/s12471-019-1285-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. R. Lopes, M. S. van Mourik, E. V. Schaft, L. A. Ramos, J. Baan Jr., J. Vendrik, B. A. J. M. de Mol, M. M. Vis, H. A. Marquering

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a commonly applied procedure for high-risk aortic valve stenosis patients. However, for some patients, this procedure does not result in the expected benefits. Previous studies indicated that it is difficult to predict the beneficial effects for specific patients. We aim to study the accuracy of various traditional machine learning (ML) algorithms in the prediction of TAVI outcomes. Clinical and laboratory data from 1,478 TAVI patients from a single centre were collected. The outcome measures were improvement of dyspnoea and mortality. Three experiments were performed using (1) screening data, (2) laboratory data, and (3) the combination of both. Five well-established ML techniques were implemented, and the models were evaluated based on the area under the curve (AUC). Random forest classifier achieved the highest AUC (0.70) for predicting mortality. Logistic regression had the highest AUC (0.56) in predicting improvement of dyspnoea. In our single-centre TAVI population, the tree-based models were slightly more accurate than others in predicting mortality. However, ML models performed poorly in predicting improvement of dyspnoea.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Computer Science 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2020.
All research outputs
#15,574,021
of 23,148,322 outputs
Outputs from Netherlands Heart Journal
#300
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,039
of 350,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Netherlands Heart Journal
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,148,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.