ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Improving predictive performance in incident heart failure using machine learning and multi-center data.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Models for Time-to-Event Outcome Applied in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction.Journal of medical systems · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic models for patients suffering a heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review.ESC heart failure · 2024Pooled it
- The Progress of Gout Prediction Models Based on Multi-source Data.Current rheumatology reviews · 2026Review
- Sex Differences in Repolarization Markers: Telemonitoring for Chronic Heart Failure Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Hypertension Management: An Ace up Your Sleeve.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
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
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
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.