ArticleESC heart failure2024
Deep learning for predicting rehospitalization in acute heart failure: Model foundation and external validation.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: An Umbrella Review of Applications and Translational Challenges.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge in patients with chronic heart failure.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Deep learning to predict emergency department revisit using static and dynamic features (Deep Revisit): development and validation study.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Deep learning for predicting rehospitalization in acute heart failure: Model foundation and external validation.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAssessing the risk for HF rehospitalization is important for managing and treating patients with HF. To address this need, various risk prediction models have been developed. However, none of them used deep learning methods with real-world data. This study aimed to develop a deep learning-based prediction model for HF rehospitalization within 30, 90, and 365 days after acute HF (AHF) discharge. METHODS AND
resultsWe analysed the data of patients admitted due to AHF between January 2014 and January 2019 in a tertiary hospital. In performing deep learning-based predictive algorithms for HF rehospitalization, we use hyperbolic tangent activation layers followed by recurrent layers with gated recurrent units. To assess the readmission prediction, we used the AUC, precision, recall, specificity, and F1 measure. We applied the Shapley value to identify which features contributed to HF readmission. Twenty-two prognostic features exhibiting statistically significant associations with HF rehospitalization were identified, consisting of 6 time-independent and 16 time-dependent features. The AUC value shows moderate discrimination for predicting readmission within 30, 90, and 365 days of follow-up (FU) (AUC:0.63, 0.74, and 0.76, respectively). The features during the FU have a relatively higher contribution to HF rehospitalization than features from other time points.
conclusionsOur deep learning-based model using real-world data could provide valid predictions of HF rehospitalization in 1 year follow-up. It can be easily utilized to guide appropriate interventions or care strategies for patients with HF. The closed monitoring and blood test in daily clinics are important for assessing the risk of HF rehospitalization.
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.