Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36330000›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Improving predictive performance in incident heart failure using machine learning and multi-center data.

František Sabovčik, Evangelos Ntalianis, Nicholas Cauwenberghs, Tatiana Kuznetsova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence in Hypertension Management: An Ace up Your Sleeve.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors.

František SabovčikResearch Unit of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Evangelos NtalianisResearch Unit of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicholas CauwenberghsResearch Unit of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Tatiana KuznetsovaResearch Unit of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Epidemiology, KU Leuven Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To mitigate the burden associated with heart failure (HF), primary prevention is of the utmost importance. To improve early risk stratification, advanced computational methods such as machine learning (ML) capturing complex individual patterns in large data might be necessary. Therefore, we compared the predictive performance of incident HF risk models in terms of (a) flexible ML models and linear models and (b) models trained on a single cohort (single-center) and on multiple heterogeneous cohorts (multi-center). Design and methods: In our analysis, we used the meta-data consisting of 30,354 individuals from 6 cohorts. During a median follow-up of 5.40 years, 1,068 individuals experienced a non-fatal HF event. We evaluated the predictive performance of survival gradient boosting (SGB), CoxNet, the PCP-HF risk score, and a stacking method. Predictions were obtained iteratively, in each iteration one cohort serving as an external test set and either one or all remaining cohorts as a training set (single- or multi-center, respectively). Results: Overall, multi-center models systematically outperformed single-center models. Further, c-index in the pooled population was higher in SGB (0.735) than in CoxNet (0.694). In the precision-recall (PR) analysis for predicting 10-year HF risk, the stacking method, combining the SGB, CoxNet, Gaussian mixture and PCP-HF models, outperformed other models with PR/AUC 0.804, while PCP-HF achieved only 0.551. Conclusion: With a greater number and variety of training cohorts, the model learns a wider range of specific individual health characteristics. Flexible ML algorithms can be used to capture these diverse distributions and produce more precise prediction models.

Indexed as

heart failureincidencemachine learningmulti-center dataprediction model

Identifiers

PMID36330000
PMCPMC9623026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.