ArticleScientific reports2024
A machine learning approach to classifying New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Effect of the Kickstart exoskeleton lower extremity walking system on improving lower extremity walking ability in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Development of a machine learning-based predictive model for feeding intolerance risk in preterm infants: A prospective cohort study.Medicine · 2026Article
- A hybrid statistical-machine learning framework for optimization, prediction, and model-fitting of xylose and total sugar production from sugarcane bagasse using recombinant Escherichia coli-mediated hydrolysis.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- Clinical staging and profiling of affective disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Explainable machine-learning model for postoperative lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis after gynecologic cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Omentin-1 as a promising biomarker and therapeutic target in hypertension and heart failure: a comprehensive review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Predicting New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure classification from medical student notes following simulated patient encounters.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Natural Language Processing of Clinical Documentation to Assess Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The Reliability and Validity of Consistently Assess Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure (CLASS-HF) Guide.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the European Society of Cardiology, globally the number of patients with heart failure nearly doubled from 33.5 million in 1990 to 64.3 million in 2017, and is further projected to increase dramatically in this decade, still remaining a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. One of the most frequently applied heart failure classification systems that physicians use is the New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification. Each NYHA class describes a patient's symptoms while performing physical activities, delivering a strong indicator of the heart performance. In each case, a NYHA class is individually determined routinely based on the subjective assessment of the treating physician. However, such diagnosis can suffer from bias, eventually affecting a valid assessment. To tackle this issue, we take advantage of the machine learning approach to develop a decision-tree, along with a set of decision rules, which can serve as additional blinded investigator tool to make unbiased assessment. On a dataset containing 434 observations, the supervised learning approach was initially employed to train a Decision Tree model. In the subsequent phase, ensemble learning techniques were utilized to develop both the Voting Classifier and the Random Forest model. The performance of all models was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation with stratification.The Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Voting Classifier models reported accuracies of 76.28%, 96.77%, and 99.54% respectively. The Voting Classifier led in classifying NYHA I and III with 98.7% and 100% accuracy. Both Random Forest and Voting Classifier flawlessly classified NYHA II at 100%. However, for NYHA IV, Random Forest achieved a perfect score, while the Voting Classifier reported 90%. The Decision Tree showed the least effectiveness among all the models tested. In our opinion, the results seem satisfactory in terms of their supporting role in clinical practice. In particular, the use of a machine learning tool could reduce or even eliminate the bias in the physician's assessment. In addition, future research should consider testing other variables in different datasets to gain a better understanding of the significant factors affecting heart failure.
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.