ArticleHeart and vessels2023
Clinical application of artificial intelligence algorithm for prediction of one-year mortality in heart failure patients.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of machine learning algorithms for mortality risk, readmission and phenotype prediction in patients with heart failure: exploring key data sources, input variables and outcomes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Global performance of machine learning models to predict all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Advances in the design, generation, and application of tissue-engineered myocardial equivalents.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Risk prediction for heart failure (HF) using machine learning methods (MLM) has not yet been established at practical application levels in clinical settings. This study aimed to create a new risk prediction model for HF with a minimum number of predictor variables using MLM. We used two datasets of hospitalized HF patients: retrospective data for creating the model and prospectively registered data for model validation. Critical clinical events (CCEs) were defined as death or LV assist device implantation within 1 year from the discharge date. We randomly divided the retrospective data into training and testing datasets and created a risk prediction model based on the training dataset (MLM-risk model). The prediction model was validated using both the testing dataset and the prospectively registered data. Finally, we compared predictive power with published conventional risk models. In the patients with HF (n = 987), CCEs occurred in 142 patients. In the testing dataset, the substantial predictive power of the MLM-risk model was obtained (AUC = 0.87). We generated the model using 15 variables. Our MLM-risk model showed superior predictive power in the prospective study compared to conventional risk models such as the Seattle Heart Failure Model (c-statistics: 0.86 vs. 0.68, p < 0.05). Notably, the model with an input variable number (n = 5) has comparable predictive power for CCE with the model (variable number = 15). This study developed and validated a model with minimized variables to predict mortality more accurately in patients with HF, using a MLM, than the existing risk scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36802023What 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.