Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713020›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2022

From population- to patient-based prediction of in-hospital mortality in heart failure using machine learning.

Sebastian König, Vincent Pellissier, Sven Hohenstein, Johannes Leiner, Andreas Meier-Hellmann, Ralf Kuhlen, Gerhard Hindricks, Andreas Bollmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Adopting artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine: a scoping review.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024
    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

8 authors.

Sebastian KönigHeart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Department of Electrophysiology, Strümpellstraße 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.
Vincent PellissierLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Sven HohensteinLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.
Johannes LeinerLeipzig Heart Institute, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3678-0208
Andreas Meier-HellmannHelios Hospitals, Berlin, Germany.
Ralf KuhlenHelios Health, Berlin, Germany.
Gerhard HindricksHeart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Department of Electrophysiology, Strümpellstraße 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.
Andreas BollmannHeart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Department of Electrophysiology, Strümpellstraße 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Utilizing administrative data may facilitate risk prediction in heart failure inpatients. In this short report, we present different machine learning models that predict in-hospital mortality on an individual basis utilizing this widely available data source. Methods and results: Inpatient cases with a main discharge diagnosis of heart failure hospitalized between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 in one of 86 German Helios hospitals were examined. Comorbidities were defined by ICD-10 codes from administrative data. The data set was randomly split into 75/25% portions for model development and testing. Five algorithms were evaluated: logistic regression [generalized linear models (GLMs)], random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), single-layer neural network (NNET), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). After model tuning, the receiver operating characteristics area under the curves (ROC AUCs) were calculated and compared with DeLong's test. A total of 59 074 inpatient cases (mean age 77.6 ± 11.1 years, 51.9% female, 89.4% NYHA Class III/IV) were included and in-hospital mortality was 6.2%. In the test data set, calculated ROC AUCs were 0.853 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.842-0.863] for GLM, 0.851 (95% CI 0.840-0.862) for RF, 0.855 (95% CI 0.844-0.865) for GBM, 0.836 (95% CI 0.823-0.849) for NNET, and 0.856 (95% CI 9.846-0.867) for XGBoost. XGBoost outperformed all models except GBM. Conclusion: Machine learning-based processing of administrative data enables the creation of well-performing prediction models for in-hospital mortality in heart failure patients.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceheart failurein-hospital mortality predictionmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36713020
PMCPMC9708014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.