Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Can machine learning improve risk prediction of incident hypertension? An internal method comparison and external validation of the Framingham risk model using HUNT Study data

View ORCID ProfileFilip Emil Schjerven, Emma Ingeström, Frank Lindseth, Ingelin Steinsland
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.02.22281859
Filip Emil Schjerven
1Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Filip Emil Schjerven
  • For correspondence: filip.e.schjerven@ntnu.no
Emma Ingeström
2Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank Lindseth
1Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingelin Steinsland
3Department of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

A recent meta-review on hypertension risk models detailed that the differences in data and study-setup have a large influence on performance, meaning model comparisons should be performed using the same study data. We compared five different machine learning algorithms and the externally developed Framingham risk model in predicting risk of incident hypertension using data from the Trøndelag Health Study. The dataset yielded n = 23722 individuals with p = 17 features recorded at baseline before follow-up 11 years later. Individuals were without hypertension, diabetes, or history of CVD at baseline. Features included clinical measurements, serum markers, and questionnaire-based information on health and lifestyle. The included modelling algorithms varied in complexity from simpler linear predictors like logistic regression to the eXtreme Gradient Boosting algorithm. The other algorithms were Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, K-Nearest Neighbor. After selecting hyperparameters using cross-validation on a training set, we evaluated the models’ performance on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness on a separate testing set using bootstrapping. Although the machine learning models displayed the best performance measures on average, the improvement from a logistic regression model fitted with elastic regularization was small. The externally developed Framingham risk model performed well on discrimination, but severely overestimated risk of incident hypertension on our data. After a simple recalibration, the Framingham risk model performed as well or even better than some of the newly developed models on all measures. Using the available data, this indicates that low-complexity models may suffice for long-term risk modelling. However, more studies are needed to assess potential benefits of a more diverse feature-set. This study marks the first attempt at applying machine learning methods and evaluating their performance on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness within the same study on hypertension risk modelling.

Author summary Hypertension, the state of persistent high blood pressure, is a largely symptom-free medical condition affecting millions of individuals worldwide, a number that is expected to rise in the coming years. While consequences of unchecked hypertension are severe, life-style modifications have been proven to be effective in prevention and treatment of hypertension. A possible tool for identifying individuals at risk of developing hypertension has been the creation of hypertension risk scores, which calculate a probability of incident hypertension sometime in the future. We compared applying machine learning as opposed to more traditional tools for constructing risk models on a large Norwegian cohort, measuring performance by model validity and clinical usefulness. Using easily obtainable clinical information and blood biomarkers as inputs, we found no clear advantage in performance using the machine learning models. Only a few of our included inputs, namely systolic and diastolic blood pressure, age, and BMI were found to be important for accurate prediction. This suggest more diverse information on individuals, like genetic, socio-economic, or dietary information, may be necessary for machine learning to excel over more established methods. A risk model developed using an American cohort, the Framingham risk model, performed well on our data after recalibration. Our study provides new insights into machine learning may be used to enhance hypertension risk prediction.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Regional Ethics Commitee (REK) is responsible for approving all medical research that is subjected to the law on health research. See: https://rekportalen.no/#hjem/home

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) has invited persons aged 13 - 100 years to four surveys between 1984 and 2019. Comprehensive data from more than 140,000 persons having participated at least once and biological material from 78,000 persons are collected. The data are stored in HUNT databank and biological material in HUNT biobank. HUNT Research Centre has permission from the Norwegian Data Inspectorate to store and handle these data. The key identification in the data base is the personal identification number given to all Norwegians at birth or immigration, whilst de-identified data are sent to researchers upon approval of a research protocol by the Regional Ethical Committee and HUNT Research Centre. To protect participants’ privacy, HUNT Research Centre aims to limit storage of data outside HUNT databank, and cannot deposit data in open repositories. HUNT databank has precise information on all data exported to different projects and are able to reproduce these on request. There are no restrictions regarding data export given approval of applications to HUNT Research Centre. For more information see: http://www.ntnu.edu/hunt/data

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 04, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Can machine learning improve risk prediction of incident hypertension? An internal method comparison and external validation of the Framingham risk model using HUNT Study data
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Can machine learning improve risk prediction of incident hypertension? An internal method comparison and external validation of the Framingham risk model using HUNT Study data
Filip Emil Schjerven, Emma Ingeström, Frank Lindseth, Ingelin Steinsland
medRxiv 2022.11.02.22281859; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.02.22281859
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Can machine learning improve risk prediction of incident hypertension? An internal method comparison and external validation of the Framingham risk model using HUNT Study data
Filip Emil Schjerven, Emma Ingeström, Frank Lindseth, Ingelin Steinsland
medRxiv 2022.11.02.22281859; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.02.22281859

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (217)
  • Allergy and Immunology (496)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1112)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (197)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (275)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (508)
  • Epidemiology (9807)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (482)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2335)
  • Geriatric Medicine (223)
  • Health Economics (464)
  • Health Informatics (1569)
  • Health Policy (738)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (609)
  • Hematology (238)
  • HIV/AIDS (508)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11674)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (617)
  • Medical Education (240)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (258)
  • Neurology (2162)
  • Nursing (134)
  • Nutrition (340)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (427)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (520)
  • Oncology (1187)
  • Ophthalmology (366)
  • Orthopedics (129)
  • Otolaryngology (221)
  • Pain Medicine (148)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (314)
  • Pediatrics (700)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (303)
  • Primary Care Research (268)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2196)
  • Public and Global Health (4694)
  • Radiology and Imaging (786)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (459)
  • Respiratory Medicine (625)
  • Rheumatology (276)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (227)
  • Sports Medicine (214)
  • Surgery (252)
  • Toxicology (43)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)