A Machine-Learning-Based Prediction Method for Hypertension Outcomes Based on Medical Data

Abstract

The outcomes of hypertension refer to the death or serious complications (such as myocardial infarction or stroke) that may occur in patients with hypertension. The outcomes of hypertension are very concerning for patients and doctors, and are ideally avoided. However, there is no satisfactory method for predicting the outcomes of hypertension. Therefore, this paper proposes a prediction method for outcomes based on physical examination indicators of hypertension patients. In this work, we divide the patients’ outcome prediction into two steps. The first step is to extract the key features from the patients’ many physical examination indicators. The second step is to use the key features extracted from the first step to predict the patients’ outcomes. To this end, we propose a model combining recursive feature elimination with a cross-validation method and classification algorithm. In the first step, we use the recursive feature elimination algorithm to rank the importance of all features, and then extract the optimal features subset using cross-validation. In the second step, we use four classification algorithms (support vector machine (SVM), C4.5 decision tree, random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)) to accurately predict patient outcomes by using their optimal features subset. The selected model prediction performance evaluation metrics are accuracy, F1 measure, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve. The 10-fold cross-validation shows that C4.5, RF, and XGBoost can achieve very good prediction results with a small number of features, and the classifier after recursive feature elimination with cross-validation feature selection has better prediction performance. Among the four classifiers, XGBoost has the best prediction performance, and its accuracy, F1, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values are 94.36%, 0.875, and 0.927, respectively, using the optimal features subset. This article’s prediction of hypertension outcomes contributes to the in-depth study of hypertension complications and has strong practical significance.

Predicting hypertension using machine learning: Findings from Qatar Biobank Study

“…Discrepancies in classification models’ performance are related to several factors, including the differences in technologies, procedures, and assumptions that operate under each model, differences in the dataset characteristics, and the number of predictors used as well as the model building technique and sample size [ 64 ]. Similar to performance results found in some studies [ 65 , 66 ], random forest performed better than the decision tree. This result is expected, as random forests with multiple single trees are known to be robust techniques than a single decision tree.…”

Exploring the Predictors of Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder for Parkinson’s Disease Patients Using Classifier Ensemble

“…Even though it is known that the prediction performance of RF is higher than that of decision tree [ 20 ], prediction studies using biomarkers [ 21 ] and those using images [ 22 ] have been mainly conducted for evaluating diseases so far. Moreover, only a few RF-based studies utilize sociodemographic factors, questionnaire data such as health habits, or neuropsychological examination data [ 23 ]. This study develops a model for predicting the high-risk groups of Parkinson’s disease sleep behavior disorder using RF and provides baseline information for selecting subjects for polysomnography.…”

Dynamic brain fluctuations outperform connectivity measures and mirror pathophysiological profiles across dementia subtypes: A multicenter study

“…We used a GBM classifier library called XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting), a classification algorithm employed in fMRI analysis. Compared to other algorithms, XGBoost proves more robust and is less affected by irrelevant and redundant features ( Chang et al, 2019 ). The algorithm was tuned by Bayesian optimization ( Supplementary information 6 ) ( Fig.…”