ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Machine Learning For Risk Prediction After Heart Failure Emergency Department Visit or Hospital Admission Using Administrative Health Data.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence applications in heart failure.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Beyond Clinical Acuity: Cardiac Comorbidity and Complication Profiles and the Prehospital Hospitalization/Transport Decision in Ischemic Heart Disease-A Five-Year Retrospective Emergency Medical Service Study in Astana, Kazakhstan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Machine learning-based hybrid risk estimation system (ERES) in cardiac surgery: Supplementary insights from the ASA score analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPatients visiting the emergency department (ED) or hospitalized for heart failure (HF) are at increased risk for subsequent adverse outcomes, however effective risk stratification remains challenging. We utilized a machine-learning (ML)-based approach to identify HF patients at risk of adverse outcomes after an ED visit or hospitalization using a large regional administrative healthcare data system. METHODS AND
resultsPatients visiting the ED or hospitalized with HF between 2002-2016 in Alberta, Canada were included. Outcomes of interest were 30-day and 1-year HF-related ED visits, HF hospital readmission or all-cause mortality. We applied a feature extraction method using deep feature synthesis from multiple sources of health data and compared performance of a gradient boosting algorithm (CatBoost) with logistic regression modelling. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) was used to assess model performance. We included 50,630 patients with 93,552 HF ED visits/hospitalizations. At 30-day follow-up in the holdout validation cohort, the AUC-ROC for the combined endpoint of HF ED visit, HF hospital readmission or death for the Catboost and logistic regression models was 74.16 (73.18-75.11) versus 62.25 (61.25-63.18), respectively. At 1-year follow-up corresponding values were 76.80 (76.1-77.47) versus 69.52 (68.77-70.26), respectively. AUC-ROC values for the endpoint of all-cause death alone at 30-days and 1-year follow-up were 83.21 (81.83-84.41) versus 69.53 (67.98-71.18), and 85.73 (85.14-86.29) versus 69.40 (68.57-70.26), for the CatBoost and logistic regression models, respectively.
conclusionsML-based modelling with deep feature synthesis provided superior risk stratification for HF patients at 30-days and 1-year follow-up after an ED visit or hospitalization using data from a large administrative regional healthcare system.
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.