ArticlePloS one2021
External validation of a claims-based model to predict left ventricular ejection fraction class in patients with heart failure.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic inflammation and the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical and research applications of natural language processing for heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-assisted automated heart failure detection and classification from electronic health records.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Development and validation of algorithms to predict left ventricular ejection fraction class from healthcare claims data.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure From 2021 to 2022: An Analysis of Real-World Data.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- Progression of Heart Failure in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Germany: An Analysis Using German Health Insurance Claims Data.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.European heart journal · 2023 · on this mapObservational
- Health Care Utilization and Costs in Systemic Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma from 2016 to 2020.The oncologist · 2023Article
- Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Tool to Predict Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Scores in Cirrhosis, Using Administrative Datasets.Clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Association of Medicare-Medicaid Dual Eligibility and Race and Ethnicity With Ischemic Stroke Severity.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEjection fraction (EF) is an important prognostic factor in heart failure (HF), but administrative claims databases lack information on EF. We previously developed a model to predict EF class from Medicare claims. Here, we evaluated the performance of this model in an external validation sample of commercial insurance enrollees.
methodsTruven MarketScan claims linked to electronic medical records (EMR) data (IBM Explorys) containing EF measurements were used to identify a cohort of US patients with HF between 01-01-2012 and 10-31-2019. By applying the previously developed model, patients were classified into HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF). EF values recorded in EMR data were used to define gold-standard HFpEF (LVEF ≥45%) and HFrEF (LVEF<45%). Model performance was reported in terms of overall accuracy, positive predicted values (PPV), and sensitivity for HFrEF and HFpEF.
resultsA total of 7,001 HF patients with an average age of 71 years were identified, 1,700 (24.3%) of whom had HFrEF. An overall accuracy of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.82) was seen in this external validation sample. For HFpEF, the model had sensitivity of 0.96 (95%CI, 0.95-0.97) and PPV of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.81-0.82); while for HFrEF, the sensitivity was 0.32 (95%CI, 0.30-0.34) and PPV was 0.73 (95%CI, 0.69-0.76). These results were consistent with what was previously published in US Medicare claims data.
conclusionsThe successful validation of the Medicare claims-based model provides evidence that this model may be used to identify patient subgroups with specific EF class in commercial claims databases as well.
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.