ArticleESC heart failure2024
Applying natural language processing to identify emergency department and observation encounters for worsening heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and research applications of natural language processing for heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Applying natural language processing to identify emergency department and observation encounters for worsening heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsWorsening heart failure (WHF) events occurring in non-inpatient settings are becoming increasingly recognized, with implications for prognostication. We evaluate the performance of a natural language processing (NLP)-based approach compared with traditional diagnostic coding for non-inpatient clinical encounters and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND
resultsWe compared characteristics for encounters that did vs. did not meet WHF criteria, stratified by care setting [i.e. emergency department (ED) and observation stay]. Overall, 8407 (22%) encounters met NLP-based criteria for WHF (3909 ED visits and 4498 observation stays). The use of an NLP-derived definition adjudicated 3983 (12%) of non-primary HF diagnoses as meeting consensus definitions for WHF. The most common diagnosis indicated in these encounters was dyspnoea. Results were primarily driven by observation stays, in which 2205 (23%) encounters with a secondary HF diagnosis met the WHF definition by NLP.
conclusionsThe use of standard claims-based adjudication for primary diagnosis in the non-inpatient setting may lead to misclassification of WHF events in the ED and overestimate observation stays. Primary diagnoses alone may underestimate the burden of WHF in non-hospitalized settings.
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.