ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2025
Deep neural network base competing risk in predicting heart failure patient's survival.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Heart failure (HF) is a complicated disease with several competing risks of interest, such as HF death and other causes. This study compares a Deep Neural Network Competing Risks (DNNCR) and Random Survival Forest (RSF) model to evaluate the predictive performance of time-to-event outcomes in HF patients with competing risks. Methods: This study represents the retrospective analysis of 435 HF patients admitted to RCMRC, Tehran, Iran, between March and August 2018. After a five-year follow-up in 2023, predictions were analyzed based on Cause of death. This study employed RSF and DNN methods to account for competing risks in survival analysis. Then, model fitness was applied using C-index and IBS. Results: The C-index of the results shows that DNNCR is superior to RSF in predicting survival outcomes for HF and other causes of death. Precisely, the C-index was 0.65 (0.04) for HF and 0.63 (0.02) for other causes of death in the DNNCR model, while in RSF, the C-index was 0.65 (0.04) for HF and 0.61 (0.03) for Other Causes. Additionally, calibration results showed via the IBS the finest performance of the DNNCR model at 0.16 for HF, followed by other causes with an IBS of 0.18. Conclusions: The study shows that the DNNCR model outperforms RSF in predicting survival outcomes for HF patients, particularly in the presence of competing risks. The improved accuracy enables physicians to identify high-risk individuals and tailor treatment plans accordingly. Future research could utilize more diverse datasets to enhance DNNCR performance and integrate these models into clinical tools. Graphical Abstract:
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.