Interpretable Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Electronic Health Records: Multicenter Cohort Study.

Interpretable Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Electronic Health Records: Multicenter Cohort Study - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice JMIR Form Res . 2026 Jun 5;10:e91790. doi: 10.2196/91790 Interpretable Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Electronic Health Records: Multicenter Cohort Study Wei-Chen Chiang 1 , Guan-Ling Lin 1 , Yu-Sheng Chang 2, 3 , Yu-Chen Liu 1, 4 , Chih-Wei Huang 1, 5 , Phung Anh Nguyen 6, 7, 8, 9 , Jason C Hsu 7, 8, 9, 10 , Der-Ming Liou 11 , Hsuan-Chia Yang 1, 5, 7, 12, ✉ Editor: Javad Sarvestan Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Graduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, 9F, Education and Research Building, Shuang Ho Campus No. 301, Yuantong Rd, Zhonghe Dist, New Taipei, 235, Taiwan, 886 2-6620-2589 ext 10927 2 Division of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, New Taipei City, Taiwan 3 Division of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei, Taiwan 4 School of Nursing, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 5 International Center for Health Information and Technology, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan 6 Graduate Institute of Data Science, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan 7 Clinical Big Data Research Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan 8 Research Center of Healthcare Industry Data Science, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan 9 Clinical Data Center, Office of Data Science, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan 10 International PhD Program in Biotech and Healthcare Management, College of Management, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan 11 Master Program in Medical Informatics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan 12 Research Center of Big Data and Meta-Analysis, Wanfang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan ✉ Hsuan-Chia Yang, PhD, Graduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, 9F, Education and Research Building, Shuang Ho Campus No. 301, Yuantong Rd, Zhonghe Dist, New Taipei, 235, Taiwan, 886 2-6620-2589 ext 10927; lovejog@tmu.edu.tw; itpharmacist@gmail.com Received 2026 Jan 21; Revised 2026 Apr 8; Accepted 2026 Apr 20; Collection date 2026. Copyright © Wei-Chen Chiang, Guan-Ling Lin, Yu-Sheng Chang, Yu-Chen Liu, Chih-Wei Huang, Phung Anh Nguyen, Jason C Hsu, Der-Ming Liou, Hsuan-Chia Yang. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org) This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org , as well as this copyright and license information must be included. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13240640  PMID: 42247453 Abstract Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events than the general population. While machine learning offers powerful predictive capabilities, its clinical adoption is hindered by the “black-box” nature of complex algorithms. Objective This study aimed to develop interpretable survival models to predict the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with RA, providing transparent and actionable insights for personalized clinical prognosis management. Methods Using data from the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database (2011-2022) for 2461 patients with RA, machine learning survival models, including random survival forest (RSF), DeepSurv, and Cox-Time, were compared with the traditional Cox proportional hazards model. Performance was evaluated using the C-index and integrated Brier score. Permutation importance and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analyses were integrated to provide explainability for individual-level risk predictions. Results RSF demonstrated superior performance, achieving a C-index of 0.8771 and an integrated Brier score of 0.0775. Permutation importance identified key features, including creatinine, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, C-reactive protein, alanine aminotransferase, and age at RA diagnosis. SHAP analysis further quantified feature-specific effects, revealing both protective and risk-increasing associations between medications and laboratory indicators. Conclusions RSF outperformed traditional methods, and integrating SHAP enabled transparent, personalized risk interpretation, translating complex models into actionable insights for clinicians. This approach empowers clinicians to identify high-risk individuals and advances precision medicine in rheumatology. Future work should include temporal validation using data from later years and external validation using datasets from other health care systems to further assess model generalizability. Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a prevalent autoimmune disease characterized by chronic synovial inflammation leading to pain, swelling, and functional disability. Beyond articular manifestations, the systemic inflammation associated with RA, together with potential treatment-related adverse effects, increases the risk of extra-articular complications such as cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and malignancy [ 1 ]. Compared with the general population, patients with RA have an approximately 55% higher risk of cardiovascular events [ 2 ] and 40% higher cardiovascular disease–related mortality [ 3 ], underscoring the need for improved risk stratification and management. Clinically, comprehensive risk evaluation is time-consuming, requiring clinicians to manually integrate numerous clinical features from medical records. Despite this demand, research specifically focused on developing cardiovascular risk prediction systems tailored for patients with RA remains scarce. Although a few assessment tools have been established, external validation reveals that they frequently underestimate risk, particularly in high-risk individuals and active smokers [ 4 ]. Several studies have applied traditional survival analysis to predict cardiovascular outcomes in RA populations [ 5-10 ]. Although these models incorporate time-to-event information and account for censored observations, they have several limitations. These models often rely on assumptions such as proportional hazards (PH) and linear relationships between covariates and risk [ 11 , 12 ] and may have difficulty modeling complex interactions, nonlinear effects, and high-dimensional features [ 13 , 14 ]. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have emerged as powerful tools in medical research, playing key roles in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and medical image analysis, with strong performance in predicting adverse outcomes [ 15-17 ]. In survival analysis, advanced time-to-event ML and DL models, including random survival forest (RSF) [ 18 ], DeepSurv [ 19 ], and Cox-Time [ 20 ], offer superior flexibility over traditional methods by bypassing rigid PH and linearity assumptions. By autonomously capturing complex nonlinear relationships and high-order interactions in high-dimensional data, these models provide more precise and personalized risk predictions [ 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 ]. Despite their demonstrated success in clinical outcome prediction, their application to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in RA, particularly among Asian populations, remains underexplored. In addition, the widespread clinical implementation of these high-performing models faces challenges primarily due to their limited interpretability. The “black-box” nature of many algorithms limits transparency, making the prediction process and underlying reasoning difficult to understand, thereby reducing clinical trust. This study aimed to adopt advanced ML and DL approaches to evaluate the risk of MACEs among patients with RA and incorporate the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) framework [ 23 ] to develop and validate an interpretable time-to-event prediction model. By doing so, it demonstrates the feasibility and accuracy of ML-based survival models in MACE prediction, thereby providing case managers with a practical tool for individualized risk assessment and supporting personalized disease management. Methods Study Framework Clinical data were retrospectively obtained from the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database (TMUCRD) in a deidentified format to ensure patient privacy. This database integrates electronic medical records from 3 affiliated hospitals within the Taipei Medical University system: Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Municipal Wanfang Hospital, and Shuang Ho Hospital (managed by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan). The TMUCRD provides comprehensive longitudinal data, including structured clinical information (demographics, diagnostic records, pharmacological treatments, and laboratory results) and unstructured narratives (physician progress notes, radiology and pathology reports, and discharge summaries), which encompass clinical features that support risk prediction modeling [ 24 ]. Data spanning 2011 to 2022 were analyzed. The study framework consisted of the following phases: cohort identification, feature engineering, model development (including training, evaluation, and interpretation), and risk prediction. Cohort Identification and Outcome Definition Patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed RA were identified from the TMUCRD using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD-9-CM ), codes 714.0 to 714.2 and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD-10-CM ), codes M05 to M06. To ensure the inclusion of incident RA cases, we applied a minimum 12-month washout period prior to the first RA diagnosis, requiring at least 12 months of RA-free observation after database entry. Individuals with fewer than 3 rheumatology outpatient visits were excluded to reduce diagnostic misclassification. The occurrence of subsequent incident MACEs during follow-up was identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes for the following events: stroke ( ICD-9-CM : 430-437.xx; ICD-10-CM : G45.x, H34.1, and I60.x-I69.x), acute myocardial infarction ( ICD-9-CM : 410.xx; ICD-10-CM : I21.xx and I22.xx), heart failure ( ICD-9-CM : 428.xx; ICD-10-CM : I11.0, I50.xx, and I97.1), and acute coronary syndrome and ischemic heart disease ( ICD-9-CM : 410-414.xx; ICD-10-CM : I21-I24.xx). If patients had any MACEs documented before the RA diagnosis, they were excluded. Feature Engineering Feature Retrieval Feature variables (clinical characteristics) associated with MACE occurrence were selected as candidate predictors based on a literature review and expert consultation [ 8 , 25 , 26 ]. Demographic variables, including age at RA diagnosis and sex, were defined at baseline. Other clinical variables, including comorbidities, laboratory data, and medication use, were derived from structured clinical records and incorporated into the analysis as patient-level covariates. Comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and interstitial lung disease (ILD), were identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes. In addition, because the concurrent presence of DM, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and COPD may indicate a greater comorbidity burden associated with higher MACE risk, a composite variable, multiple comorbidities, was created and included in the analysis. Laboratory variables assessed in this study included rheumatoid factor (RF), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and serum creatinine. Medication use, including conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), glucocorticoids, lipid-lowering agents, and antidiabetic agents, was identified using Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes. Variables describing treatment exposure and combination therapy patterns were constructed for analysis. Combination definitions were as follows: combination 0 represented not meeting any of the criteria; combination 1 represented concurrent use of methotrexate and glucocorticoids for more than 168 days; combination 2 represented concurrent use of methotrexate, other csDMARDs, and glucocorticoids for more than 168 days; and combination 3 represented concurrent use of methotrexate and a bDMARD for more than 168 days. Data Preprocessing To ensure data quality and minimize the potential bias associated with excessive missingness, variables with more than 50% missing values were excluded [ 27 , 28 ]. Missing data in the remaining variables were addressed using an iterative chained equations imputation procedure based on multiple imputation by chained equations with Bayesian ridge regression implemented via the HyperImpute package in Python (Python Software Foundation) [ 29 ]. In this procedure, each variable with missing values was imputed sequentially using the other variables as predictors, and the conditional models were updated in a round-robin fashion based on observed and previously imputed values. The maximum number of iterations was set to 100 to improve the stability of the imputation process. After iterative updating, a single completed dataset was generated and used for subsequent model development and evaluation. For continuous variables, including clinical laboratory results and medication duration, Z -score normalization was applied to reduce potential bias arising from differences across units or scales. This transformation rescaled the variables to have a mean of 0 and an SD of 1, ensuring comparability across features and facilitating model convergence. For categorical medication combinations (4 types), one-hot encoding was applied to convert drug exposures into independent binary indicators. This approach enabled the model to distinguish treatment strategies and evaluate the effects of specific drug combinations on event risk. Model Development Overview To establish an optimal risk prediction model for MACEs in patients with RA, 3 ML-based time-to-event models were developed: RSF, DeepSurv, and Cox-Time. RSF, an ensemble learning algorithm similar to bagging, builds multiple survival trees by randomly selecting features and splitting nodes to maximize survival differences between child nodes [ 30 ]. DeepSurv, a DL-based algorithm, extends the Cox PH model to capture nonlinear relationships between input features and event occurrence. It consists of multiple hidden layers and is trained using techniques such as batch normalization and gradient descent optimization [ 19 ]. Cox-Time is another DL-based algorithm that models interactions between time and covariates by treating time as a standard covariate [ 20 ]. These models were selected based on their proven effectiveness in previous survival analysis studies [ 31-33 ]. RSF was chosen for its ability to model complex, nonlinear interactions without strong parametric assumptions; DeepSurv was chosen for its flexibility in learning deep feature representations; and Cox-Time was chosen for its explicit relaxation of the PH assumption. Model Training Subsequently, the dataset was stratified by MACE occurrence and then randomly divided into an 80% training set and a 20% test set [ 34 ]. Stratified splitting ensured that the proportions of events and nonevents in both subsets were consistent with those in the original dataset, thereby enhancing the generalizability of model training and evaluation. All models were trained and evaluated using the same 80% training dataset and identical data splits to ensure fair comparison. Model Evaluation and Optimization Model performance was evaluated using the Harrell concordance index (C-index), which quantifies the model’s ability to rank the order of events correctly [ 29 ]. The integrated Brier score (IBS) was additionally used to assess the overall accuracy of predicted survival probabilities and the calibration of the model [ 35 ]. Previous studies have reported C-index values ranging between 0.7 and 0.8, indicating moderate to good discriminative ability [ 31 , 33 , 36 ]. In practical applications, models with a Brier score below 0.25 are generally considered to have acceptable predictive performance [ 31 ]. Model performance was optimized through hyperparameter tuning using GridSearchCV with 5-fold cross-validation on the 80% training set. The training data were partitioned into 5 folds, with K – 1 folds used for model training and the remaining fold used for validation. This procedure was repeated K times, and the mean C-index across validation folds was computed to determine the optimal hyperparameter configuration. Each model was subsequently retrained on the full 80% training set using the selected hyperparameters and evaluated on the independent 20% test set. Model Interpretability Model interpretability was examined using 2 complementary approaches. First, permutation importance was applied to identify features that had a substantial impact on model prediction accuracy [ 37 , 38 ]. This method was evaluated separately on the training and testing sets, with each feature randomly permuted 15 times to reduce the uncertainty associated with a single permutation. The average change in the C-index resulting from these permutations was used to quantify the importance of each variable. Second, the SHAP method was used to interpret individual predictions, illustrating both the direction and magnitude of feature effects and visualizing the relationships between feature values and predicted MACE risk [ 23 ]. Conventional Cox PH Regression To provide a benchmark for comparison with ML-based survival models, a conventional Cox PH regression approach was used. The patient cohort was stratified according to MACE occurrence. Univariable and multivariable Cox PH regression analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between clinical features and MACE risk. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis was further conducted to illustrate the cumulative incidence of MACEs over time, and log-rank tests were applied to compare risk differences between groups [ 25 ]. Statistical Analysis Continuous variables were summarized as means and SDs, whereas categorical variables were presented as counts and percentages. Differences in clinical characteristics were assessed using chi-square tests for categorical variables and 2-tailed independent-sample t tests for continuous variables, with statistical significance defined as a P value of less than .05. All statistical analyses and computations were performed using Python (version 3.11.4) and SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc). Ethical Considerations This study was approved by the Taipei Medical University Joint Institutional Review Board (approval number N202312006) and authorized by the Data Management Center and the Institutional Data Governance Committee of Taipei Medical University. Results Cohort Identification and Dataset Allocation Figure 1 shows the cohort identification and study workflow. From approximately 4.2 million individuals in the TMUCRD, 9771 patients with RA were initially identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 2461 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 253 (10.3%) experienced MACEs. The overall mean age was 51.9 (SD 13.9) years, and most patients were female (1917/2461, 77.9%). The dataset was stratified according to MACE occurrence and randomly divided into an 80% training set and a 20% test set. No significant differences in variable distributions were observed between the 2 subsets, ensuring their comparability for model development and evaluation ( Table 1 ). Figure 1. Enrollment and study workflow. ICD-9-CM : International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ; ICD-10-CM : International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular event; PH: proportional hazards; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; RSF: random survival forest; SHAP: Shapley additive explanations; TMUCRD: Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database. Open in a new tab Table 1. Patient characteristics in the overall cohort, training set, and test set (N=2461). Overall Training (n=1968) Test (n=493) P value Experienced MACEs a , n (%) 253 (10.3) 202 (10.3) 51 (10.3) — b Follow-up (mo), mean (SD) 44 (32.4) 44 (32.3) 43.8 (32.8) .92 Demographics Sex (female), n (%) 1917 (77.9) 1531 (77.8) 386 (78.3) .86 Age (y), mean (SD) 51.9 (13.9) 52.2 (13.8) 51.1 (14.4) .13 Comorbidities, n (%) Diabetes mellitus 246 (10.0) 200 (10.2) 46 (9.3) .64 Hypertension 483 (19.6) 388 (19.7) 95 (19.3) .87 Hyperlipidemia 564 (22.9) 464 (23.6) 100 (20.3) .14 COPD c 321 (13.0) 255 (13.0) 66 (13.4) .86 MC d 19 (0.8) 14 (0.7) 5 (1.0) .56 ILD e 17 (0.7) 10 (0.5) 7 (1.4) .06 Cancer 106 (4.3) 88 (4.5) 18 (3.7) .50 Laboratory tests, mean (SD) Rheumatoid factor, IU/mL 80.9 (251.0) 81.8 (215.2) 77.4 (360.1) .79 C-reactive protein, mg/dL 0.9 (2.9) 0.9 (3.0) 0.7 (2.4) .22 ESR f , mm/h 17.2 (18.5) 17.5 (18.8) 15.8 (17.3) .06 AST g , U/L 24.4 (26.9) 24.2 (28.3) 24.9 (20.4) .57 ALT h , U/L 23.6 (30.2) 23.3 (29.4) 24.8 (33.1) .37 Creatinine, mg/dL 0.9 (2.3) 0.9 (2.5) 0.9 (0.8) .54 Medication use (d), mean (SD) bDMARDs i 136.9 (456.4) 135.4 (459.2) 142.6 (445.4) .75 csDMARDs j 1037.6 (1461.5) 1034.2 (1462.5) 1051.2 (1459.1) .82 Glucocorticoids 302.5 (501.0) 307.5 (505.4) 282.7 (483.0) .31 Lipid-lowering agents 97.2 (361.5) 95.9 (339.9) 102.4 (437.7) .76 Antidiabetic agents 45 (289.5) 43.9 (285.5) 49.5 (305.4) .71 Medication combination k , n (%) .33 Combination 0 1800 (73.1) 1436 (73.0) 364 (73.8) Combination 1 58 (2.4) 50 (2.5) 8 (1.6) Combination 2 569 (23.1) 458 (23.3) 111 (22.5) Combination 3 34 (1.4) 24 (1.2) 10 (2.0) Open in a new tab a MACE: major adverse cardiovascular event. b Not available. c COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. d MC: multiple comorbidities, defined as concurrent diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and COPD. e ILD: interstitial lung disease. f ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate. g AST: aspartate aminotransferase. h ALT: alanine aminotransferase. i bDMARD: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. j csDMARD: conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. k Combination definitions: combination 0 encompasses not meeting any of the criteria; combination 1 encompasses concurrent use of methotrexate and glucocorticoids for more than 168 days; combination 2 encompasses concurrent use of methotrexate, other csDMARDs, and glucocorticoids for more than 168 days; and combination 3 encompasses concurrent use of methotrexate and a bDMARD for more than 168 days. Model Performance and Interpretability For each model, candidate hyperparameters were tuned using 5-fold cross-validation with GridSearchCV on the training set. The configuration yielding the highest average C-index across validation folds was retained as the optimal setting, as summarized in Table 2 . Each model was subsequently retrained on the full training set using these optimized hyperparameters and evaluated on the independent test set, with detailed results shown in Table 3 . Among all models, RSF achieved the best performance during 5-fold cross-validation, with an average C-index of 0.8443 (SD 0.0373; 95% CI 0.8116-0.8771). Consistent with the cross-validation results, the RSF model maintained the highest performance on the independent test set (C-index=0.8771; IBS=0.0775). Table 2. Model performance in 5-fold cross-validation with hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV. Model Fold C-index a , mean (SD; 95% CI) Optimal hyperparameter RSF b Fold 1: 0.8912 Fold 2: 0.8524 Fold 3: 0.8272 Fold 4: 0.7824 Fold 5: 0.8685 0.8443 (0.0373; 0.8116-0.8771) {‘max_features’: ‘sqrt’, ‘min_samples_leaf’: 5, ‘min_samples_split’: 5, ‘n_estimators’: 200} Cox PH c Fold 1: 0.8169 Fold 2: 0.7769 Fold 3: 0.7424 Fold 4: 0.6887 Fold 5: 0.7864 0.7623 (0.0438; 0.7239-0.8006) — d Cox-Time Fold 1: 0.8463 Fold 2: 0.8267 Fold 3: 0.7700 Fold 4: 0.7557 Fold 5: 0.7873 0.7972 (0.0342; 0.7672-0.8272) {‘batch_norm’: True, ‘dropout’: 0.3, ‘learning_rate’: 0.001, ‘num_nodes’: [128, 128]} DeepSurv Fold 1: 0.8355 Fold 2: 0.8257 Fold 3: 0.8011 Fold 4: 0.7739 Fold 5: 0.8311 0.8135 (0.0231; 0.7932-0.8337) {‘batch_norm’: True, ‘dropout’: 0.1, ‘learning_rate’: 0.001, ‘num_nodes’: [256, 256]} Open in a new tab a C-index: concordance index. b RSF: random survival forest. c PH: proportional hazards. d Not available. Table 3. Performance of the retrained model on training and test sets. Metric and model 80% training set 20% test set C-index a RSF b 0.9690 0.8771 Cox PH c 0.7936 0.7569 Cox-Time 0.8179 0.7989 DeepSurv 0.8896 0.8163 IBS d RSF 0.0397 0.0775 Cox PH 0.0825 0.0936 Cox-Time 0.1267 0.1298 DeepSurv 0.0632 0.0855 Open in a new tab a C-index: concordance index. b RSF: random survival forest. c PH: proportional hazards. d IBS: integrated Brier score. The RSF model was applied, and permutation importance was evaluated to rank feature contributions, as shown in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Creatinine, csDMARDs, CRP, ALT, age, and RF were identified as the most critical features for predicting MACE risk, demonstrating markedly higher importance than other variables. Figure 2 shows the SHAP summary plots illustrating the contribution of individual features to the prediction of MACEs. Creatinine, which had the largest mean absolute SHAP values, exhibited the greatest impact on the model output, followed by ALT, csDMARDs, age, CRP, RF, AST, and ESR (left panel). In contrast, the use of csDMARDs, bDMARDs, glucocorticoids, and lipid-lowering agents showed negative SHAP values, suggesting protective factors against MACEs (right panel). Figure 2. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) summary plots for the random survival forest model. (A) Features are ranked in descending order by mean absolute SHAP value, with larger values indicating greater overall contribution to the model. (B) The SHAP summary plot shows the direction and magnitude of feature effects on predicted major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) risk; values to the right indicate higher predicted risk, whereas values to the left indicate lower predicted risk. Red and blue dots represent higher and lower feature values, respectively. Medication combinations are defined in the Methods section and Table 1 footnote. Briefly, combination 0 indicates not meeting any medication combination criteria, and combination 2 indicates concurrent use of methotrexate, other csDMARDs, and GCs for more than 168 days. ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; bDMARDs, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CRP: C-reactive protein; csDMARDs: conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; DM: diabetes mellitus; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GCs: glucocorticoids; HLD: hyperlipidemia; HTN: hypertension; ILD: interstitial lung disease; LLAs: lipid-lowering agents; RF: rheumatoid factor. Open in a new tab Association Analysis and Survival Validation For comparison with ML- and DL-based survival models, a traditional Cox PH regression was used. Multimedia Appendix 2 summarizes the clinical characteristics stratified by MACE occurrence. Patients with MACEs were older and showed a higher prevalence of hypertension, DM, hyperlipidemia, COPD, and ILD. Laboratory markers were also elevated in the MACE group, including RF, ESR, and creatinine. In contrast, patients without MACEs had longer treatment durations with bDMARDs and csDMARDs. In the Cox PH model ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ), univariable regression showed that an older age at RA diagnosis; comorbidities such as DM, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, COPD, and ILD; elevated ESR; and higher creatinine levels were associated with increased MACE risk . In contrast, the defined medication combination was associated with lower MACE risk. Multivariate regression further identified age at RA diagnosis, hypertension, and creatinine levels as independent predictors of MACEs. Among these, hypertension was the most prominent risk factor for MACEs. For further model application and personalized interpretation, the KM survival curve for the entire cohort was overlaid with the RSF model’s average survival function based on the testing set, as shown in Figure 3 , demonstrating highly consistent 5-year survival rates of 0.8725 for the KM model and 0.8549 for the RSF model. Figure 3. Comparison of random survival forest (RSF) and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves. Open in a new tab Discussion Key Findings and Contributions To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use multi-hospital electronic health record (EHR) data to develop and validate interpretable time-to-event ML and DL models for predicting MACE risk in Asian patients with RA. Using real-world data from a large health care system, the RSF model achieved the best performance in the independent test set (C-index=0.8771; IBS=0.0775), outperforming the Cox PH, DeepSurv, and Cox-Time models. The strong concordance between the RSF-predicted and KM-estimated survival curves confirmed the robustness of the model. Moreover, by integrating the SHAP framework, the model provided transparent interpretability and identified key features, including creatinine, csDMARD use, CRP, ALT, and RA diagnosis age, as the most influential determinants of MACE risk in RA. This study offers several important advances over previous prognostic research on RA. First, compared with conventional Cox models that typically rely on linear effects and PH assumptions, ML- and DL-based survival algorithms such as RSF, DeepSurv, and Cox-Time extend traditional Cox modeling by capturing nonlinear effects and, in some cases, relaxing the PH assumption. RSF and Cox-Time in particular provide more flexible modeling frameworks that may better accommodate the complexity of real-world clinical data. Second, through 5-fold cross-validation and independent test set evaluation, the RSF model achieved the best predictive performance among the models examined, supporting the feasibility of this modeling framework for MACE risk prediction in patients with RA. Third, we combined permutation importance, which quantified the overall contribution of each feature to model performance, with SHAP analysis, which enhanced individual-level interpretability, thereby linking model predictions to personalized risk assessment. Clinical Interpretation and Implications Analysis of the RSF model using SHAP interpretability techniques identified creatinine, ALT, CRP, csDMARD use, and RA diagnosis age as key features associated with MACE risk. The observed associations were largely consistent with previous evidence: elevated creatinine reflects the adverse cardiovascular impact of renal dysfunction [ 39 , 40 ]. Higher ALT levels may reflect fatty liver disease [ 41 ], including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease, both of which have been associated with an increased risk of MACEs [ 42-44 ]. Similarly, higher CRP highlights the critical role of systemic inflammation in RA-related cardiovascular complications [ 45 , 46 ], and an older age at RA diagnosis has been linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes [ 7 , 47 ]. Moreover, SHAP analysis supported prior evidence by showing that longer exposure to csDMARDs, bDMARDs [ 48 , 49 ], and lipid-lowering agents [ 50 , 51 ] aligns with reports highlighting the prognostic importance for cardiovascular outcomes of initiating effective treatment and inflammation control, as illustrated by the red-colored dots clustering toward the left (negative SHAP values) in Figure 2 (right panel). Interestingly, previous studies have reported conflicting results regarding the association between glucocorticoids and MACEs. Cardiovascular protection appears limited to low-dose use (≤5 mg of prednisone daily) [ 52 ], whereas higher doses, prolonged use, older age, and comorbidities are associated with increased risk [ 53 ]. In SHAP analysis, glucocorticoids were linked to reduced MACE risk. Additional analysis of follow-up duration and exposure days in this study revealed that MACE cases had brief daily exposure, suggesting short-term, low-dose use. Nonetheless, MACE risk should be interpreted in relation to all clinical features, as reflected by the overall distribution of SHAP values. In summary, our study, by integrating the RSF model with permutation importance and SHAP analyses, offers valuable insights into high-risk factors and provides interpretable predictions for clinical application. This demonstrates the feasibility of ML models for predicting MACE risk in patients with RA, potentially aiding case managers in improving patient prognosis and developing personalized treatment plans. Personalized Predictions Using SHAP Overview SHAP values further provide granular insights into how clinical features such as age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidities, and medication use influence each patient’s risk of experiencing MACEs. To illustrate this personalized risk interpretation, we present 2 contrasting cases: a man aged 46 years who remained MACE free throughout the follow-up and a woman aged 66 years who experienced a MACE during the study. Individual SHAP force (top) and waterfall (bottom) plots for both cases are presented in Figure 4 . Figure 4. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values for 2 representative cases: a man aged 46 years who was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) free (case A) and a woman aged 66 years who experienced a MACE (case B). For each case, the top panel shows the SHAP force plot, and the bottom panel shows the waterfall plot derived from the random survival forest model. Red denotes features that increase MACE risk, whereas blue denotes features that decrease MACE risk. Arrows indicate the shift from the baseline prediction to the individualized prediction. Key contributing features include creatinine, rheumatoid factor (RF), age at rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis (RA_AGE), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), glucocorticoid (GC) use, and hypertension (HTN). Open in a new tab Case A: Man Aged 46 Years, MACE Free A man aged 46 years was diagnosed with RA and followed for 54 months without MACEs. His SHAP plots indicated reduced MACE risk: starting from the baseline prediction of 15.53, the cumulative contributions of his individual features lowered the predicted risk score to 5.18 ( Figure 4 ; case A force plot). Risk-reducing contributors included creatinine, RF, age at RA diagnosis, ALT, csDMARD use, CRP, and ESR, whereas AST and glucocorticoid use were risk increasing. Consistent with these explanations, his individual KM curve (Figure S2 in Multimedia Appendix 4 , top panel) showed that the estimated time point corresponding to a MACE-free probability of 80% was 8.38 years. His 5-year MACE-free probability was 0.94, corresponding to a 5-year MACE risk of 0.06. Case B: Woman Aged 66 Years, Experienced a MACE A woman aged 66 years was diagnosed with RA and experienced a MACE after 51.1 months of follow-up. Her SHAP plots indicated elevated MACE risk: starting from the baseline prediction of 15.53, the cumulative contributions of her individual features increased the predicted risk score to 17.47 ( Figure 4 ; case B force plot). Risk-increasing contributors included RF, AST, CRP, and age at RA diagnosis, whereas csDMARD use, creatinine, ESR, and ALT had protective effects. Consistent with these explanations, her individual KM curve ( Multimedia Appendix 4 , bottom panel) showed that the estimated time point at which the MACE-free probability decreased to 80% was 6.03 years. Her 5-year MACE-free probability was 0.85, equivalent to a 5-year MACE risk of 0.15. Key Insights From Both Cases Taken together, these 2 contrasting cases illustrate how the RSF-SHAP framework leverages patient-level characteristics to estimate MACE risk. The key observations are that (1) laboratory markers, including renal function (creatinine), systemic inflammation (RF, CRP, and ESR), and hepatic function (AST and ALT), were more informative than other laboratory values and contributed more to risk differentiation; (2) medication exposure (csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and glucocorticoids) highlighted the link between therapy and risk, with csDMARD exposure being the most influential treatment feature; (3) age at diagnosis was an important determinant, suggesting interactions with comorbidity burden, medication exposure, and adverse biochemical profiles; and (4) baseline comorbidities had a comparatively smaller influence than laboratory and treatment features. These patterns align with permutation importance ( Multimedia Appendix 1 ) and the SHAP summary ( Figure 2 ). Strengths and Limitations Our study offers several significant advances over existing prognostic models. By leveraging large-scale, multi-hospital EHR data to develop survival ML models for MACE risk in patients with RA, this study demonstrates superior predictive accuracy through the RSF model’s ability to capture complex nonlinear relationships and complex feature interactions without relying on the PH assumption. By integrating SHAP analysis, it provides transparent, individual-level risk interpretations that bridge the gap between complex algorithms and personalized clinical decision-making. Despite this study’s strengths, several limitations should be considered. First, this retrospective study involved substantial missingness in the TMUCRD dataset. Variables with more than 50% missing data were excluded as such missingness often suggests limited clinical relevance in routine care. For the remaining important variables, missing values were addressed using an iterative chained equations imputation approach informed by the multiple imputation by chained equations to preserve data structure and intervariable relationships. Although this may reduce bias compared with single imputation, excluding highly incomplete variables may still have limited our ability to capture patient heterogeneity. Missing laboratory covariates were further imputed under a missing at random assumption; however, the imputation model did not incorporate survival outcome information, which may have affected covariate-outcome associations. Second, the model was internally evaluated using a stratified train-test split and cross-validation, but neither external nor temporal validation was performed in this study. Accordingly, the generalizability of the findings to other hospitals, health care settings, ethnic populations, and calendar periods remains uncertain. In addition, calibration plots, decision curve analysis, and threshold-based performance evaluation were not included in this study. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as preliminary rather than definitive evidence of clinical usefulness. Third, although ML-based survival models were applied, the predictors were incorporated as patient-level covariates rather than as truly time-varying covariates updated during follow-up. Therefore, the models may not fully capture dynamic changes in clinical status, laboratory results, and treatment exposure over time. Fourth, despite the use of cross-validation, the relatively modest number of events (n=253) and the complexity of the ML models may still introduce a risk of overfitting. Fifth, while disease and medication may contribute to MACE risk prediction, medication exposure in observational EHR data may be influenced by disease severity, prescribing patterns, and other potential confounders. Finally, the EHR database lacked key lifestyle covariates such as smoking status, BMI, and physical activity, which may have resulted in incomplete adjustment for potential confounding. Conclusions In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the RSF model significantly outperformed traditional Cox PH and DL-based survival models in predicting MACE risk among patients with RA. By effectively capturing nonlinear relationships and feature interactions, our model provides superior predictive accuracy and robustness. The integration of permutation importance and SHAP analyses bridges the gap between complex “black-box” algorithms and clinical practice, offering a transparent framework for personalized risk assessment. These findings empower clinicians and case managers to identify high-risk individuals early and develop tailored preventive strategies. Future work should include calibration assessment, decision curve analysis, and threshold-based performance evaluation, as well as temporal validation using data from later calendar periods; external validation using data from other health care systems across diverse ethnic populations; and the incorporation of time-varying variables for clinical status, laboratory measurements, and treatment exposure to improve predictive accuracy, clinical utility, and generalizability. Supplementary material Multimedia Appendix 1. Permutation importance of input features in the random survival forest model. formative-v10-e91790-s001.docx (152.3KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 2. Clinical characteristics stratified by major adverse cardiovascular event occurrence. formative-v10-e91790-s002.docx (18.9KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 3. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses for predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. formative-v10-e91790-s003.docx (19.2KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 4. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for cases A and B. formative-v10-e91790-s004.docx (339.7KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the Clinical Data Center, Office of Data Science, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, for their support in facilitating data release for this study. During manuscript preparation, the authors used a generative artificial intelligence tool (ChatGPT; OpenAI) solely for English-language editing and wording refinement to improve clarity and readability. The tool was not used for data analysis, study design, result interpretation, or the formulation of conclusions. All content was reviewed and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the manuscript. Abbreviations ALT alanine aminotransferase AST aspartate aminotransferase bDMARD biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CRP C-reactive protein csDMARD conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug DL deep learning DM diabetes mellitus EHR electronic health record ESR erythrocyte sedimentation rate IBS integrated Brier score ICD-10-CM International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification ICD-9-CM International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ILD interstitial lung disease KM Kaplan-Meier MACE major adverse cardiovascular event ML machine learning PH proportional hazards RA rheumatoid arthritis RF rheumatoid factor RSF random survival forest SHAP Shapley additive explanations TMUCRD Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database Footnotes Funding: This work was supported by grants from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (NSTC 113-2628-B-038-007-MY3), and the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, awarded to HCY. Data Availability: The authors obtained data from the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database. Due to institutional and privacy restrictions, the data are not publicly available. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. The datasets may be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request and with appropriate approval. Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization: WCC, YSC, CWH, HCY Data curation: WCC Formal analysis: WCC, GLL Funding acquisition: HCY Investigation: WCC Methodology: WCC, PAN, JCH, HCY Resources: HCY Software: WCC Supervision: DML, HCY Visualization: GLL Writing—original draft: WCC, YCL Writing—review and editing: GLL, YSC, DML, HCY Conflicts of Interest: None declared. References 1. Di Matteo A, Bathon JM, Emery P. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2023 Nov 25;402(10416):2019–2033. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01525-8. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Restivo V, Candiloro S, Daidone M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular risk in rheumatological disease: symptomatic and non-symptomatic events in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmun Rev. 2022 Jan;21(1):102925. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2021.102925. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Lee YH, Song GG. All-cause and cause-specific mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis. Z Rheumatol. 2024 Dec;83(Suppl 3):314–320. doi: 10.1007/s00393-024-01538-3. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Ljung L, Ueda P, Liao KP, et al. Performance of the Expanded Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Score for Rheumatoid Arthritis in a geographically distant national register-based cohort: an external validation. RMD Open. 2018;4(2):e000771. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000771. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Yoshida K, Harrold LR, Middaugh N, et al. Time-varying association of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity to subsequent cardiovascular risk. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2022 Jul;4(7):587–595. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11432. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Kawano Y, Weber BN, Weisenfeld D, et al. Risk of incident heart failure and heart failure subtypes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2025 May;77(5):631–639. doi: 10.1002/acr.25481. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Yamaoka K, Sugiyama N, Hoshi M, Jo JY, Shin K, Hirano T. Risk factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events and malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world setting in Japan. Int J Rheum Dis. 2024 Dec;27(12):e15448. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.15448. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Meng H, Lam SH, So H, Tam LS. Incidence and risk factors of major cardiovascular events in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: a population-based cohort study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2024 Apr;65:152416. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152416. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Kang S, Han K, Jung JH, et al. Associations between cardiovascular outcomes and rheumatoid arthritis: a nationwide population-based cohort study. J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 17;11(22):6812. doi: 10.3390/jcm11226812. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Liu S, Chen S, Huang Y, et al. Association of weight-adjusted waist index with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality among rheumatoid arthritis population: a cohort study from the NHANES 1999-2018. Lipids Health Dis. 2025 Jul 1;24(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12944-025-02594-7. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Bardo M, Huber C, Benda N, et al. Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: a systematic review. Stat Methods Med Res. 2024 Jun;33(6):1069–1092. doi: 10.1177/09622802241242325. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Remontet L, Uhry Z, Bossard N, et al. Flexible and structured survival model for a simultaneous estimation of non-linear and non-proportional effects and complex interactions between continuous variables: performance of this multidimensional penalized spline approach in net survival trend analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Aug;28(8):2368–2384. doi: 10.1177/0962280218779408. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Salerno S, Li Y. High-dimensional survival analysis: methods and applications. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2023 Mar;10(1):25–49. doi: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-032921-022127. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Vatcheva KP, Lee M, McCormick JB, Rahbar MH. The effect of ignoring statistical interactions in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies: an example with survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Epidemiology (Sunnyvale) 2015 Feb;6(1):216. doi: 10.4172/2161-1165.1000216. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. O’Donnell A, Cronin M, Moghaddam S, Wolsztynski E. A systematic review on machine learning techniques for survival analysis in cancer. Cancer Med. 2025 Nov;14(22):e71375. doi: 10.1002/cam4.71375. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Delpino FM, Pimenta LP, Gonzalez DF, et al. Global performance of machine learning models to predict all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2025 Nov 27;15(1):42707. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-26714-6. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Huang Y, Li J, Li M, Aparasu RR. Application of machine learning in predicting survival outcomes involving real-world data: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Nov 13;23(1):268. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02078-1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Rigatti SJ. Random forest. J Insur Med. 2017;47(1):31–39. doi: 10.17849/insm-47-01-31-39.1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Katzman JL, Shaham U, Cloninger A, Bates J, Jiang T, Kluger Y. DeepSurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a Cox proportional hazards deep neural network. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Feb 26;18(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0482-1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Kvamme H, Borgan Ø, Scheel I. Time-to-event prediction with neural networks and Cox regression. [27-05-2026];J Mach Learn Res. 2019 20:1–30. https://jmlr.org/papers/volume20/18-424/18-424.pdf URL. Accessed. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Wiegrebe S, Kopper P, Sonabend R, Bischl B, Bender A. Deep learning for survival analysis: a review. Artif Intell Rev. 2024;57:65. doi: 10.1007/s10462-023-10681-3. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Huang Y, Bazzazzadehgan S, Li J, et al. Comparison of machine learning methods versus traditional Cox regression for survival prediction in cancer using real-world data: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Oct 28;25(1):243. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02694-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Lundberg S, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. arXiv. 2017 May 22; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874. Preprint posted online on. doi. [ DOI ] 24. Hsu JC, Nguyen PA, Phuc PT, et al. Development and validation of novel deep-learning models using multiple data types for lung cancer survival. Cancers (Basel) 2022 Nov 12;14(22):5562. doi: 10.3390/cancers14225562. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis: a review. JAMA. 2018 Oct 2;320(13):1360–1372. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13103. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Burmester GR, Pope JE. Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389(10086):2338–2348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31491-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Heymans MW, Twisk JWR. Handling missing data in clinical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Nov;151:185–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.016. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Salehi F, Salin E, Smarr B, et al. A robust machine learning approach to predicting remission and stratifying risk in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with bDMARDs. Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 4;15(1):23960. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09975-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Jarrett D, Cebere BC, Liu T, Curth A, van der Schaar M. Hyperimpute: generalized iterative imputation with automatic model selection. [27-05-2026];Proc Mach Learn Res. 2022 162:9916–9937. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/jarrett22a.html URL. Accessed. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS. Random survival forests. Ann Appl Stat. 2008;2(3):841–860. doi: 10.1214/08-AOAS169. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Adeoye J, Hui L, Koohi-Moghadam M, Tan JY, Choi SW, Thomson P. Comparison of time-to-event machine learning models in predicting oral cavity cancer prognosis. Int J Med Inform. 2022 Jan;157:104635. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104635. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Wang Y, Deng Y, Tan Y, Zhou M, Jiang Y, Liu B. A comparison of random survival forest and Cox regression for prediction of mortality in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Oct 13;23(1):215. doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02293-2. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Yang X, Qiu H, Wang L, Wang X. Predicting colorectal cancer survival using time-to-event machine learning: retrospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Oct 26;25:e44417. doi: 10.2196/44417. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Joseph VR. Optimal ratio for data splitting. Stat Anal Data Min. 2022 Aug;15(4):531–538. doi: 10.1002/sam.11583. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Graf E, Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data. Stat Med. 1999 Sep;18(17-18):2529–2545. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/183.0.co;2-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Tang H, Jin Z, Deng J, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning model to predict the survival of patients in ICU. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Aug 16;29(9):1567–1576. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac098. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Altmann A, Toloşi L, Sander O, Lengauer T. Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics. 2010 May 15;26(10):1340–1347. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Molnar C. Interpretable Machine Learning. Lulu.com; 2020. ISBN.9780244768522 [ Google Scholar ] 39. Fukui S, Winkelmayer WC, Tedeschi SK, et al. Disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis and kidney function decline: a large prospective registry study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2025 Feb;84(2):201–209. doi: 10.1136/ard-2024-226156. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Hanaoka H, Aoki T, Kosaka T, et al. Chronic kidney disease and inflammatory cytokines in rheumatoid arthritis: a potential pathogenic link. Immunol Med. 2025 Sep;48(3):161–170. doi: 10.1080/25785826.2025.2460267. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Lim GE, Tang A, Ng CH, et al. An observational data meta-analysis on the differences in prevalence and risk factors between MAFLD vs NAFLD. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Mar;21(3):619–629. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.11.038. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Vaz K, Kemp W, Majeed A, et al. NAFLD and MAFLD independently increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): a 20-year longitudinal follow-up study from regional Australia. Hepatol Int. 2024 Aug;18(4):1135–1143. doi: 10.1007/s12072-024-10706-1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Arias-de la Rosa I, Ruiz-Ponce M, Cuesta-López L, et al. Clinical features and immune mechanisms directly linked to the altered liver function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Intern Med. 2023 Dec;118:49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2023.08.002. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Saidi AN, Theel WB, Burggraaf B, et al. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and cardiovascular risk factors in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2025 Apr;44(4):1485–1492. doi: 10.1007/s10067-025-07364-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Erre GL, Cacciapaglia F, Sakellariou G, et al. C-reactive protein and 10-year cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Intern Med. 2022 Oct;104:49–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.07.001. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Hansildaar R, Vedder D, Baniaamam M, Tausche AK, Gerritsen M, Nurmohamed MT. Cardiovascular risk in inflammatory arthritis: rheumatoid arthritis and gout. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021 Jan;3(1):e58–e70. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30221-6. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Alsing CL, Igland J, Nystad TW, et al. Data-driven identification of subgroups in early rheumatoid arthritis: mortality and cardiovascular disease in a cohort from Western Norway. RMD Open. 2025 Sep 26;11(3):e005905. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2025-005905. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Meissner Y, Schäfer M, Albrecht K, et al. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with conventional synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: observational data from the German RABBIT register. RMD Open. 2023 Oct;9(4):e003489. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003489. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Ozen G, Pedro S, Michaud K. The risk of cardiovascular events associated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2021 May;48(5):648–655. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200265. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Rahmadi AR, Pranata R, Raffaello WM, et al. The effect of statin on major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022 May;26(9):3171–3178. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202205_28734. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Kitas GD, Nightingale P, Armitage J, et al. A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Sep;71(9):1437–1449. doi: 10.1002/art.40892. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Ocon AJ, Reed G, Pappas DA, Curtis JR, Kremer JM. Short-term dose and duration-dependent glucocorticoid risk for cardiovascular events in glucocorticoid-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Dec;80(12):1522–1529. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220577. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Coburn BW, Baker JF, Hsu JY, et al. Association of cardiovascular outcomes with low-dose glucocorticoid prescription in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2024 Nov;76(11):1585–1593. doi: 10.1002/art.42928. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Multimedia Appendix 1. Permutation importance of input features in the random survival forest model. formative-v10-e91790-s001.docx (152.3KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 2. Clinical characteristics stratified by major adverse cardiovascular event occurrence. formative-v10-e91790-s002.docx (18.9KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 3. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses for predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. formative-v10-e91790-s003.docx (19.2KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Multimedia Appendix 4. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for cases A and B. formative-v10-e91790-s004.docx (339.7KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/91790 Articles from JMIR Formative Research are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc. ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (2.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Machine Learning to Predict Remission Between Six and 24 Months in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Insights from the JAK‐pot Collaboration#11561
• Explainable machine learning revealing the impact of mental and physical health on arthritis.#358520
• A Hybrid Predictive Ensemble of Machine Learning and Deep Neural Networks for Early Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment#660818
• Machine Learning Sepsis Alert Notification Using Clinical Data#882481
• Comparison of an ensemble machine learning model to a Cox regression model to predict colorectal cancer risk among people with HIV using retrospective nationwide cohort data in Sweden: a study protocol.#685851