Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in research for subtype definition and risk prediction, particularly in cardiovascular diseases. No existing ML models are routinely used for cardiovascular disease management, and their phase of clinical utility is unknown, partly due to a lack of clear criteria. We evaluated ML for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: For ML studies of subtype definition and risk prediction, we conducted a systematic review in HF, ACS and AF, using PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 2000 until December 2019. By adapting published criteria for diagnostic and prognostic studies, we developed a seven-domain, ML-specific checklist. RESULTS: Of 5918 studies identified, 97 were included. Across studies for subtype definition (n = 40) and risk prediction (n = 57), there was variation in data source, population size (median 606 and median 6769), clinical setting (outpatient, inpatient, different departments), number of covariates (median 19 and median 48) and ML methods. All studies were single disease, most were North American (n = 61/97) and only 14 studies combined definition and risk prediction. Subtype definition and risk prediction studies respectively had limitations in development (e.g. 15.0% and 78.9% of studies related to patient benefit; 15.0% and 15.8% had low patient selection bias), validation (12.5% and 5.3% externally validated) and impact (32.5% and 91.2% improved outcome prediction; no effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evaluations). CONCLUSIONS: Studies of ML in HF, ACS and AF are limited by number and type of included covariates, ML methods, population size, country, clinical setting and focus on single diseases, not overlap or multimorbidity. Clinical utility and implementation rely on improvements in development, validation and impact, facilitated by simple checklists. We provide clear steps prior to safe implementation of machine learning in clinical practice for cardiovascular diseases and other disease areas.

Gender and ethnic differences in publication of BMJ letters to the editor: an observational study using machine learning.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the relationship between first author's gender and ethnicity (estimated from first name and surname), and chance of publication of rapid responses in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). To analyse whether other features of the rapid response account for any gender or ethnic differences, including the presence of multiple authors, declaration of conflicts of interests, the presence of Twitter handle, word count, reading ease, spelling and grammatical mistakes, and the presence of references. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: Website of the BMJ (BMJ.com). PARTICIPANTS: Publicly available rapid responses submitted to BMJ.com between 1998 and 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication of a rapid response as a letter to the editor in the BMJ. RESULTS: We analysed 113 265 rapid responses, of which 8415 were published as letters to the editor (7.4%). Statistically significant univariate correlations were found between odds of publication and first author estimated gender and ethnicity, multiple authors, declaration of conflicts of interest, the presence of Twitter handle, word count, reading ease, spelling and grammatical mistakes, and the presence of references. Multivariate analysis showed that first author estimated gender and ethnicity predicted publication after taking into account the other factors. Compared to white authors, black authors were 26% less likely to be published (OR: 0.74, CI: 0.57-0.96), Asian and Pacific Islander authors were 46% less likely to be published (OR: 0.54, CI: 0.49-0.59) and Hispanic authors were 49% less likely to be published (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.41-0.64). Female authors were 10% less likely to be published (OR: 0.90, CI: 0.85-0.96) than male authors. CONCLUSION: Ethnic and gender differences in rapid response publication remained after accounting for a broad range of features, themselves all predictive of publication. This suggests that the reasons for the differences of these groups lies elsewhere.