ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Predicting 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization using interpretable machine learning: evidence from a 20-year population-based rural registry.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Readmissions after heart failure hospitalization are common, costly, and potentially preventable, but discharge risk stratification remains challenging, particularly in rural health systems with constrained resources. We aimed to develop an interpretable artificial intelligence approach to estimate individual 30-day all-cause readmission risk using routinely collected variables. We analyzed nearly 5,000 heart failure admissions from a non-public regional Spanish registry representing a rural healthcare setting (2000-2019; 8.2% readmitted within 30 days) and not previously used for artificial intelligence modeling. Three machine learning models -random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and support vector machine- were trained, validated, and compared with binary logistic regression. SHAP quantified predictor contributions and assessed the direction and consistency of their effects. Random forest showed the best performance (AUC 0.812, 95% CI 0.744-0.867), outperforming binary logistic regression (AUC 0.686, 95% CI 0.617-0.755). The most influential predictors were admission period, renal dysfunction markers, prior heart failure, age, and length of stay. Interpretable machine learning improved 30-day readmission risk stratification using routine data and provided transparent explanations that could support targeted post-discharge interventions. External validation and prospective impact evaluation are required before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704616What 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.