ArticlePloS one2024
Simplification of a registry-based algorithm for ejection fraction prediction in heart failure patients: Applicability in cardiology centres of the Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to the Letter to the Editor "Advancing Clinical and Ethical Dimensions of Deep Learning in Cardiovascular Imaging".Health science reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is used to categorize heart failure (HF) into phenotypes but this information is often missing in electronic health records or non-HF registries.
methodsWe tested the applicability of a simplified version of a multivariable algorithm, that was developed on data of the Swedish Heart Failure Registry to predict EF in patients with HF. We used data from 4,868 patients with HF from the Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands database, an organization of 13 cardiac outpatient clinics that operate between the general practitioner and the hospital cardiologist. The algorithm included 17 demographical and clinical variables. We tested model discrimination, model performance and calculated model sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for EF ≥ vs. <50% and EF ≥ vs. <40%. We additionally performed a multivariable multinomial analysis for all three separate HF phenotypes (with reduced, mildly reduced and preserved EF) HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFpEF. Finally, we internally validated the model by using temporal validation.
resultsMean age was 66 ±12 years, 44% of patients were women, 68% had HFpEF, 17% had HFrEF, and 15% had HFmrEF. The C-statistic was of 0.71 for EF ≥/< 50% (95% CI: 0.69-0.72) and of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.73-0.75) for EF ≥/< 40%. The model had the highest sensitivities for EF ≥50% (0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.75) and for EF ≥40% (0.70, 95% CI: 0.65-0.71). Similar results were achieved by the multinomial model, but the C-statistics for predicting HFpEF vs HFrEF was lower (0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.63). The internal validation confirmed good discriminative ability.
conclusionsA simple algorithm based on routine clinical characteristics can help discern HF phenotypes in non-cardiology datasets and research settings such as research on primary care data, where measurements of EF is often not available.
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.