Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34816632›Full record

Observational studyESC heart failure2022

Machine learning optimization of an electronic health record audit for heart failure in primary care.

Willem Raat, Miek Smeets, Severine Henrard, Bert Aertgeerts, Joris Penders, Walter Droogne, Wilfried Mullens, Stefan Janssens, Bert Vaes

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in ESC heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Development and early implementation of automated audit and feedback monitoring instruments in Belgian primary care: lessons for scalable systems.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  3. AI and Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. 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.

Willem RaatDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9591-3974
Miek SmeetsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Severine HenrardLouvain Drug Research Institute, Clinical Pharmacy Research Group (CLIP) and Institute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
Bert AertgeertsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Joris PendersZiekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Walter DroogneDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Wilfried MullensZiekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Stefan JanssensDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bert VaesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe diagnosis of heart failure (HF) is an important problem in primary care. We previously demonstrated a 74% increase in registered HF diagnoses in primary care electronic health records (EHRs) following an extended audit procedure. What remains unclear is the accuracy of registered HF pre-audit and which EHR variables are most important in the extended audit strategy. This study aims to describe the diagnostic HF classification sequence at different stages, assess general practitioner (GP) HF misclassification, and test the predictive performance of an optimized audit. METHODS AND

resultsThis is a secondary analysis of the OSCAR-HF study, a prospective observational trial including 51 participating GPs. OSCAR used an extended audit based on typical HF risk factors, signs, symptoms, and medications in GPs' EHR. This resulted in a list of possible HF patients, which participating GPs had to classify as HF or non-HF. We compared registered HF diagnoses before and after GPs' assessment. For our analysis of audit performance, we used GPs' assessment of HF as primary outcome and audit queries as dichotomous predictor variables for a gradient boosted machine (GBM) decision tree algorithm and logistic regression model. Of the 18 011 patients eligible for the audit intervention, 4678 (26.0%) were identified as possible HF patients and submitted for GPs' assessment in the audit stage. There were 310 patients with registered HF before GP assessment, of whom 146 (47.1%) were judged not to have HF by their GP (over-registration). There were 538 patients with registered HF after GP assessment, of whom 374 (69.5%) did not have registered HF before GP assessment (under-registration). The GBM and logistic regression model had a comparable predictive performance (area under the curve of 0.70 [95% confidence interval 0.65-0.77] and 0.69 [95% confidence interval 0.64-0.75], respectively). This was not significantly impacted by reducing the set of predictor variables to the 10 most important variables identified in the GBM model (free-text and coded cardiomyopathy, ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and combinations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and beta-blockers with diuretics). This optimized query set was enough to identify 86% (n = 461/538) of GPs' self-assessed HF population with a 33% reduction (n = 1537/4678) in screening caseload.

conclusionsDiagnostic coding of HF in primary care health records is inaccurate with a high degree of under-registration and over-registration. An optimized query set enabled identification of more than 80% of GPs' self-assessed HF population.

Indexed as

General PractitionersHeart FailureElectronic Health RecordsHumansMachine LearningPrimary Health CareAudit and feedbackChronic heart failureElectronic health recordsPrimary careScreening

Identifiers

PMID34816632
PMCPMC8787980

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.