ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Validation, bias assessment, and optimization of the UNAFIED 2-year risk prediction model for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using national electronic health data.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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.
- Screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using an electronic health record‒based clinical prediction model: clinical pilot implementation initiative.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prediction models for atrial fibrillation (AF) may enable earlier detection and guideline-directed treatment decisions. However, model bias may lead to inaccurate predictions and unintended consequences. Objective: The purpose of this study was to validate, assess bias, and improve generalizability of "UNAFIED-10," a 2-year, 10-variable predictive model of undiagnosed AF in a national data set (originally developed using the Indiana Network for Patient Care regional data). Methods: UNAFIED-10 was validated and optimized using Optum de-identified electronic health record data set. AF diagnoses were recorded in the January 2018-December 2019 period (outcome period), with January 2016-December 2017 as the baseline period. Validation cohorts (patients with AF and non-AF controls, aged ≥40 years) comprised the full imbalanced and randomly sampled balanced data sets. Model performance and bias in patient subpopulations based on sex, insurance, race, and region were evaluated. Results: Of the 6,058,657 eligible patients (mean age 60 ± 12 years), 4.1% (n = 246,975) had their first AF diagnosis within the outcome period. The validated UNAFIED-10 model achieved a higher C-statistic (0.85 [95% confidence interval 0.85-0.86] vs 0.81 [0.80-0.81]) and sensitivity (86% vs 74%) but lower specificity (66% vs 74%) than the original UNAFIED-10 model. During retraining and optimization, the variables insurance, shock, and albumin were excluded to address bias and improve generalizability. This generated an 8-variable model (UNAFIED-8) with consistent performance. Conclusion: UNAFIED-10, developed using regional patient data, displayed consistent performance in a large national data set. UNAFIED-8 is more parsimonious and generalizable for using advanced analytics for AF detection. Future directions include validation on additional data sets.
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.