ArticleBMJ open2022
Prediction of heart failure 1 year before diagnosis in general practitioner patients using machine learning algorithms: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dr AI will see you now: could artificial intelligence replace general practitioners?Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHeart failure (HF) is a commonly occurring health problem with high mortality and morbidity. If potential cases could be detected earlier, it may be possible to intervene earlier, which may slow progression in some patients. Preferably, it is desired to reuse already measured data for screening of all persons in an age group, such as general practitioner (GP) data. Furthermore, it is essential to evaluate the number of people needed to screen to find one patient using true incidence rates, as this indicates the generalisability in the true population. Therefore, we aim to create a machine learning model for the prediction of HF using GP data and evaluate the number needed to screen with true incidence rates. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND
participantsGP data from 8543 patients (-2 to -1 year before diagnosis) and controls aged 70+ years were obtained retrospectively from 01 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 from the Nivel Primary Care Database. Codes about chronic illness, complaints, diagnostics and medication were obtained. Data were split in a train/test set. Datasets describing demographics, the presence of codes (non-sequential) and upon each other following codes (sequential) were created. Logistic regression, random forest and XGBoost models were trained. Predicted outcome was the presence of HF after 1 year. The ratio case:control in the test set matched true incidence rates (1:45).
resultsSole demographics performed average (area under the curve (AUC) 0.692, CI 0.677 to 0.706). Adding non-sequential information combined with a logistic regression model performed best and significantly improved performance (AUC 0.772, CI 0.759 to 0.785, p<0.001). Further adding sequential information did not alter performance significantly (AUC 0.767, CI 0.754 to 0.780, p=0.07). The number needed to screen dropped from 14.11 to 5.99 false positives per true positive.
conclusionThis study created a model able to identify patients with pending HF a year before diagnosis.
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.