ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure classification from medical student notes following simulated patient encounters.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Random forest models have demonstrated utility in the determination of New York Heart Association (NYHA) Heart Failure Classifications. This study aims to determine the prediction accuracy of a random forest model to derive NYHA Classification from medical students' free-text history of present illness (HPI). NYHA Classifications established terminology for delineation of various heart failure presentations, this terminology was converted into keywords shared by standardized patients. 649 typed HPIs were de-identified, tokenized, cleaned, and assessed for number of correct keywords, incorrect keywords, and keyword usage. Models were trained using bootstrapped training data and assessed on test data. In testing, the model demonstrated a 0.775% error rate in identifying NYHA II, 26.3% for NYHA III, and 6.90% for NYHA IV. Overall reporting a 0.420% estimated error rate on the bootstrap sample training set and an 8.20% misclassification rate on the testing set. In future applications, developing a method of instantaneous feedback centered around keywords and their importance measures, specifically as determined by the variable importance plot (VIP), may aid students in their determination of NYHA Classifications and improve their lexical density.
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.