Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34085775›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2021

Machine ​learning algorithms for claims data-based prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with heart failure.

Sebastian König, Vincent Pellissier, Sven Hohenstein, Andres Bernal, Laura Ueberham, Andreas Meier-Hellmann, Ralf Kuhlen, Gerhard Hindricks, Andreas Bollmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sebastian KönigDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, Leipzig, 04289, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3759-3052
Vincent PellissierLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Sven HohensteinLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Andres BernalLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Laura UeberhamDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, Leipzig, 04289, Germany.
Andreas Meier-HellmannHelios Hospitals, Berlin, Germany.
Ralf KuhlenHelios Health, Berlin, Germany.
Gerhard HindricksDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, Leipzig, 04289, Germany.
Andreas BollmannDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, Leipzig, 04289, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsModels predicting mortality in heart failure (HF) patients are often limited with regard to performance and applicability. The aim of this study was to develop a reliable algorithm to compute expected in-hospital mortality rates in HF cohorts on a population level based on administrative data comparing regression analysis with different machine learning (ML) models. METHODS AND

resultsInpatient cases with primary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) encoded discharge diagnosis of HF non-electively admitted to 86 German Helios hospitals between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 were identified. The dataset was randomly split 75%/25% for model development and testing. Highly unbalanced variables were removed. Four ML algorithms were applied, and all algorithms were tuned using a grid search with multiple repetitions. Model performance was evaluated by computing receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve. In total, 59 125 cases (69.8% aged 75 years or older, 51.9% female) were investigated, and in-hospital mortality was 6.20%. Areas under the curve of all ML algorithms outperformed regression analysis in the testing dataset with values of 0.829 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.814-0.843] for logistic regression, 0.875 (95% CI 0.863-0.886) for random forest, 0.882 (95% CI 0.871-0.893) for gradient boosting machine, 0.866 (95% CI 0.854-0.878) for single-layer neural networks, and 0.882 (95% CI 0.872-0.893) for extreme gradient boosting. Brier scores demonstrated a good calibration especially of the latter three models.

conclusionsWe introduced reliable models to calculate expected in-hospital mortality based only on administrative routine data using ML algorithms. A broad application could supplement quality measurement programs and therefore improve future HF patient care.

Indexed as

Heart FailureMachine LearningAlgorithmsFemaleHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansMaleHeart failureIn-hospital mortalityMachine learningMortality predictionPrediction models

Identifiers

PMID34085775
PMCPMC8318394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.