ArticleAmerican heart journal2024
Characterizing advanced heart failure risk and hemodynamic phenotypes using interpretable machine learning.
Article in American heart journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease Through Integrated Machine Learning Models Combining Clinical and Demographic Characteristics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From patterns to prognosis: machine learning-derived clusters in advanced heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in heart failure - a comprehensive literature review.Cardiology journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough previous risk models exist for advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), few integrate invasive hemodynamics or support missing data. This study developed and validated a heart failure (HF) hemodynamic risk and phenotyping score for HFrEF, using Machine Learning (ML).
methodsPrior to modeling, patients in training and validation HF cohorts were assigned to 1 of 5 risk categories based on the composite endpoint of death, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation or transplantation (DeLvTx), and rehospitalization in 6 months of follow-up using unsupervised clustering. The goal of our novel interpretable ML modeling approach, which is robust to missing data, was to predict this risk category (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) using either invasive hemodynamics alone or a rich and inclusive feature set that included noninvasive hemodynamics (all features). The models were trained using the ESCAPE trial and validated using 4 advanced HF patient cohorts collected from previous trials, then compared with traditional ML models. Prediction accuracy for each of these 5 categories was determined separately for each risk category to generate 5 areas under the curve (AUCs, or C-statistics) for belonging to risk category 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, respectively.
resultsAcross all outcomes, our models performed well for predicting the risk category for each patient. Accuracies of 5 separate models predicting a patient's risk category ranged from 0.896 +/- 0.074 to 0.969 +/- 0.081 for the invasive hemodynamics feature set and 0.858 +/- 0.067 to 0.997 +/- 0.070 for the all features feature set.
conclusionNovel interpretable ML models predicted risk categories with a high degree of accuracy. This approach offers a new paradigm for risk stratification that differs from prediction of a binary outcome. Prospective clinical evaluation of this approach is indicated to determine utility for selecting the best treatment approach for patients based on risk and prognosis.
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.