ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of deep learning with traditional models to predict preventable acute care use and spending among heart failure patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of machine learning algorithms for mortality risk, readmission and phenotype prediction in patients with heart failure: exploring key data sources, input variables and outcomes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Healthcare Service Quality Metrics: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of claims-based algorithms to identify interstitial lung disease among Japanese patients with cancer in routine clinical practice using real-world data sources.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Logistic Regression and Machine Learning Algorithms for the Risk Prediction of Perioperative Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Elderly Patients.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2025Article
- Preserving Informative Presence: How Missing Data and Imputation Strategies Affect the Performance of an AI-Based Early Warning Score.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Construction of Risk Prediction Model of Type 2 Diabetic Kidney Disease Based on Deep Learning.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2024Article
- Enhancing the diagnosis of functionally relevant coronary artery disease with machine learning.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Incorporating longitudinal history of risk factors into atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Temporal convolutional networks and data rebalancing for clinical length of stay and mortality prediction.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Current state of artificial intelligence-based algorithms for hospital admission prediction in patients with heart failure: a scoping reviewEuropean heart journal. Digital health · 2022Article
- Decision Support Systems in HF based on Deep Learning Technologies.Current heart failure reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent health reforms have created incentives for cardiologists and accountable care organizations to participate in value-based care models for heart failure (HF). Accurate risk stratification of HF patients is critical to efficiently deploy interventions aimed at reducing preventable utilization. The goal of this paper was to compare deep learning approaches with traditional logistic regression (LR) to predict preventable utilization among HF patients. We conducted a prognostic study using data on 93,260 HF patients continuously enrolled for 2-years in a large U.S. commercial insurer to develop and validate prediction models for three outcomes of interest: preventable hospitalizations, preventable emergency department (ED) visits, and preventable costs. Patients were split into training, validation, and testing samples. Outcomes were modeled using traditional and enhanced LR and compared to gradient boosting model and deep learning models using sequential and non-sequential inputs. Evaluation metrics included precision (positive predictive value) at k, cost capture, and Area Under the Receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Deep learning models consistently outperformed LR for all three outcomes with respect to the chosen evaluation metrics. Precision at 1% for preventable hospitalizations was 43% for deep learning compared to 30% for enhanced LR. Precision at 1% for preventable ED visits was 39% for deep learning compared to 33% for enhanced LR. For preventable cost, cost capture at 1% was 30% for sequential deep learning, compared to 18% for enhanced LR. The highest AUROCs for deep learning were 0.778, 0.681 and 0.727, respectively. These results offer a promising approach to identify patients for targeted interventions.
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.