ArticleBMJ open2025
Machine learning methods, applications and economic analysis to predict heart failure hospitalisation risk: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Biomarkers in Heart Failure: A Review and a Wish.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine Learning (ML) has been transformative in healthcare, enabling more precise diagnostics, personalised treatment regimens and enhanced patient care. In cardiology, ML plays a crucial role in risk prediction and patient stratification, particularly for heart failure (HF), a condition affecting over 64 million people globally and imposing an economic burden of approximately $108 billion annually. ML applications in HF include predictive analytics for risk assessment, identifying patient subgroups with varying prognoses and optimising treatment pathways. By accurately predicting the likelihood of hospitalisation and rehospitalisation, ML tools help tailor interventions, reduce hospital visits, improve patient outcomes and lower healthcare costs.
objectiveTo conduct a comprehensive review of existing ML models designed to predict hospitalisation risk in individuals with HF.
methodsA database search including PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science was conducted on 31 March 2024. Studies were selected based on inclusion criteria focusing on ML models predicting hospitalisation risks in adults with HF. The data from 27 studies meeting the criteria were extracted and analysed, with a focus on the predictive performance of the ML models and the presence of economic analysis.
resultsMost studies focused on predicting readmission rather than first-time hospitalisation. All included studies employed supervised ML algorithms, with ensemble-based methods generally yielding the highest predictive performance. For 30-day hospitalisation or readmission risk, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) achieved the highest mean area under the curve (AUC) (0.69), followed by Naïve Bayes (0.68) and Deep Unified Networks (0.66). For 90-day risk, the best-performing models were Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator and Gradient Boosting, both with a mean AUC of 0.75, followed by Random Forest (0.67). When the prediction timeframe was unspecified, Categorical Boosting achieved the highest performance with a mean AUC of 0.88, followed by Generalised Linear Model Net and XGBoost (both 0.79).Electronic health records were the primary data source across studies; however, few models included patient-reported outcomes or socioeconomic variables.None of the studies conducted an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of these models.
conclusionsML holds substantial potential for improving HF care. However, further efforts are needed to enhance the generalisation of models, integrate diverse data sources and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these technologies.
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.