Abstract
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe and often deadly disease, originating from an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance. The REVEAL risk score calculator [3] has been widely used and extensively validated by health-care professionals to predict PAH risks. The calculator is based on the Cox’s Proportional Hazard (CPH) model, a popular statistical technique used in risk estimation and survival analysis. In this study, we explore an alternative approach to the PAH patient risk assessment based on a Bayesian network (BN) model using the same variables and discretization cut points as the REVEAL risk score calculator. We applied a Tree Augmented Naïve Bayes algorithm for structure and parameter learning from a data set of 2,456 adult patients from the REVEAL registry. We compared our BN model against the original CPH-based calculator quantitatively and qualitatively. Our BN model relaxes some of the CPH model assumptions, which seems to lead to a higher accuracy (AUC = 0.77) than that of the original calculator (AUC = 0.71). We show that hazard ratios, expressing strength of influence in the CPH model, are static and insensitive to changes in context, which limits applicability of the CPH model to personalized medical care.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bandyopadhyay, S., et al.: Data mining for censored time-to-event data: a Bayesian network model for predicting cardiovascular risk from electronic health record data. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 29(4), 1033–1069 (2015)
Benza, R.L., et al.: The REVEAL registry risk score calculator in patients newly diagnosed with pulmonary arterial hypertension. CHEST 141(2), 354–362 (2012)
Benza, R.L., et al.: Predicting survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension: insights from the Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Disease Management (REVEAL). Circulation 122(2), 164–172 (2010)
Cox, D.R.: Regression models and life-tables. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 34(2), 187–220 (1972)
Friedman, N., Geiger, D., Goldszmidt, M.: Bayesian network classifiers. Mach. Learn. 29(2–3), 131–163 (1997)
Hernán, M.A.: The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 21(1), 13 (2010)
Husmeier, D., Dybowski, R., Roberts, S.: Probabilistic Modeling in Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics. Springer, London (2005)
Kanwar, M.K., et al.: A Bayesian model to predict survival after left ventricular assist device implantation. JACC Heart Fail. 6(9), 771–779 (2018)
Kraisangka, J., Druzdzel, M.J.: A Bayesian network interpretation of the Cox’s proportional hazard model. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 103, 195–211 (2018)
Kraisangka, J., Druzdzel, M.J., Benza, R.L.: A risk calculator for the pulmonary arterial hypertension based on a Bayesian network. In: Proceedings of the 13th UAI Bayesian Modeling Applications Workshop, pp. 1–6 (2016)
Pearl, J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1988)
Štajduhar, I., Dalbelo-Bašić, B.: Learning Bayesian networks from survival data using weighting censored instances. J. Biomed. Inform. 43(4), 613–622 (2010)
Štajduhar, I., Dalbelo-Bašić, B.: Uncensoring censored data for machine learning: a likelihood-based approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(8), 7226–7234 (2012)
Zhang, Z., Reinikainen, J., Adeleke, K.A., Pieterse, M.E., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.: Time-varying covariates and coefficients in Cox regression models. Ann. Transl. Med. 6(7), 121 (2018)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the support of the National Institute of Health (1R01HL134673-01), Department of Defence (W81XWH-17-1-0556), and the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology, Mahidol University, Thailand. Implementation of this work is based on GeNIe and SMILE, a Bayesian inference engine developed at the Decision Systems Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh. It is currently a commercial product but is still available free of charge for academic research and teaching at https://www.bayesfusion.com/. While we are taking full responsibility for any remaining errors and shortcomings of the paper, we would like to thank Dr. Carol Zhao of Actelion Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., for her assistance in learning the TAN model from the REVEAL data set. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable input that has greatly improved the quality of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kraisangka, J., Druzdzel, M.J., Lohmueller, L.C., Kanwar, M.K., Antaki, J.F., Benza, R.L. (2019). Bayesian Network vs. Cox’s Proportional Hazard Model of PAH Risk: A Comparison. In: Riaño, D., Wilk, S., ten Teije, A. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. AIME 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11526. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21642-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21642-9_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21641-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21642-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)