ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a deep learning model for survival prediction in heart failure: competing risk and frailty model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
This study presents a novel deep learning (DL) framework, the Deep Neural Frailty Competing Risks (DNFCR) model, which simultaneously integrates frailty and competing risks (CR) for mortality prediction in heart failure (HF). While existing models like Neural Frailty Models (NFM) address frailty and DeepHit handles CR, DNFCR is the first DL approach to combine both components, offering improved handling of censored data in healthcare applications. We evaluated DNFCR against established models (DeepSurv, CoxPH) using real-world HF data, assessing its ability to capture unobserved heterogeneity through proportional (DNFCR_PF) and non-proportional (DNFCR_NF) frailty structures. In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 435 HF patients (enrolled March-September 2018; 5-year follow-up until July 2023) with 57 demographic/clinical features, categorized by cause-specific mortality. The models' performance was evaluated using the C-index, IBS, and INBLL. Our results in mortality from heart failure demonstrated marginal but consistent improvements in predictive accuracy when incorporating frailty (C-index: ~0.66). Differences in predicting other-cause mortality were minimal across the models. DNFCR-PF also performed better regarding the IBS (0.17 ± 0.01) and INBLL (0.02 ± 0.53). However, the clinical relevance of the cause-specific mortality requires further validation in both outcome categories. Comparative analysis revealed that DNFCR and traditional models achieved comparable accuracy in survival prediction, highlighting that DL's superiority is context-dependent and influenced by data and unmeasured confounders. Strengths include DNFCR's potential for personalized risk stratification and adaptability to other diseases with CR. The DNFCR model showed DL potential in HF survival prediction but requires clinical validation compared to traditional approaches.
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.