ArticleJMIR research protocols2018
Validating a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 30-Day Re-Admissions in Patients With Heart Failure: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning prediction of discharge destination in patients with Parkinson's disease; a nationwide cohort study.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Discharge Destination in Patients with Parkinson's Disease; A Nationwide Cohort Study.Research square · 2026Article
- A novel method to predict the haemoglobin concentration after kidney transplantation based on machine learning: prediction model establishment and method optimization.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- CASCADE: Context-Aware Data-Driven AI for Streamlined Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Recommendations in Oncology.Cancers · 2024Article
- An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Guiding the Management of Heart Failure Patients Using Predictive Models: A Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Electronic Medical Record-Based Machine Learning Approach to Predict the Risk of 30-Day Adverse Cardiac Events After Invasive Coronary Treatment: Machine Learning Model Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Could a Multi-Marker and Machine Learning Approach Help Stratify Patients with Heart Failure?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Machine Learning-Driven Models to Predict Prognostic Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Using Electronic Health Records: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Hospital Readmissions at a Regional Hospital.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- 30-day unplanned readmission rate in otolaryngology patients: A population-based study in Thuringia, Germany.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBig data solutions, particularly machine learning predictive algorithms, have demonstrated the ability to unlock value from data in real time in many settings outside of health care. Rapid growth in electronic medical record adoption and the shift from a volume-based to a value-based reimbursement structure in the US health care system has spurred investments in machine learning solutions. Machine learning methods can be used to build flexible, customized, and automated predictive models to optimize resource allocation and improve the efficiency and quality of health care. However, these models are prone to the problems of overfitting, confounding, and decay in predictive performance over time. It is, therefore, necessary to evaluate machine learning-based predictive models in an independent dataset before they can be adopted in the clinical practice. In this paper, we describe the protocol for independent, prospective validation of a machine learning-based model trained to predict the risk of 30-day re-admission in patients with heart failure.
objectiveThis study aims to prospectively validate a machine learning-based predictive model for inpatient admissions in patients with heart failure by comparing its predictions of risk for 30-day re-admissions against outcomes observed prospectively in an independent patient cohort.
methodsAll adult patients with heart failure who are discharged alive from an inpatient admission will be prospectively monitored for 30-day re-admissions through reports generated by the electronic medical record system. Of these, patients who are part of the training dataset will be excluded to avoid information leakage to the algorithm. An expected sample size of 1228 index admissions will be required to observe a minimum of 100 30-day re-admission events. Deidentified structured and unstructured data will be fed to the algorithm, and its prediction will be recorded. The overall model performance will be assessed using the concordance statistic. Furthermore, multiple discrimination thresholds for screening high-risk patients will be evaluated according to the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and estimated cost savings to our health care system.
resultsThe project received funding in April 2017 and data collection began in June 2017. Enrollment was completed in July 2017. Data analysis is currently underway, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in October 2018.
conclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to prospectively evaluate a predictive machine learning algorithm in a real-world setting. Findings from this study will help to measure the robustness of predictions made by machine learning algorithms and set a realistic benchmark for expectations of gains that can be made through its application to health care. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9466.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.