Dataset Information

Predicting mortality and hospitalization in heart failure using machine learning: A systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The partnership between humans and machines can enhance clinical decisions accuracy, leading to improved patient outcomes. Despite this, the application of machine learning techniques in the healthcare sector, particularly in guiding heart failure patient management, remains unpopular. This systematic review aims to identify factors restricting the integration of machine learning derived risk scores into clinical practice when treating adults with acute and chronic heart failure.

Methods

Four academic research databases and Google Scholar were searched to identify original research studies where heart failure patient data was used to build models predicting all-cause mortality, cardiac death, all-cause and heart failure-related hospitalization.

Results

Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. The selected studies' sample size ranged between 71 and 716 790 patients, and the median age was 72.1 (interquartile range: 61.1-76.8) years. The minimum and maximum area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models predicting mortality were 0.48 and 0.92, respectively. Models predicting hospitalization had an AUC of 0.47 to 0.84. Nineteen studies (63%) used logistic regression, 53% random forests, and 37% of studies used decision trees to build predictive models. None of the models were built or externally validated using data originating from Africa or the Middle-East.

Conclusions

The variation in the aetiologies of heart failure, limited access to structured health data, distrust in machine learning techniques among clinicians and the modest accuracy of existing predictive models are some of the factors precluding the widespread use of machine learning derived risk calculators.

SUBMITTER: Mpanya D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8065274 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to review the performance of machine learning (ML) methods compared with conventional statistical models (CSMs) for predicting readmission and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and to present an approach to formally evaluate the quality of studies using ML algorithms for prediction modelling.Methods and resultsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EPUB, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, INSPEC, ACM Library, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included primary research articles published between January 2000 and July 2020 comparing ML and CSMs in mortality and readmission prognosis of initially hospitalized HF patients. Data were extracted and analysed by two independent reviewers. A modified CHARMS checklist was developed in consultation with ML and biostatistics experts for quality assessment and was utilized to evaluate studies for risk of bias. Of 4322 articles identified and screened by two independent reviewers, 172 were deemed eligible for a full-text review. The final set comprised 20 articles and 686 842 patients. ML methods included random forests (n = 11), decision trees (n = 5), regression trees (n = 3), support vector machines (n = 9), neural networks (n = 12), and Bayesian techniques (n = 3). CSMs included logistic regression (n = 16), Cox regression (n = 3), or Poisson regression (n = 3). In 15 studies, readmission was examined at multiple time points ranging from 30 to 180 day readmission, with the majority of studies (n = 12) presenting prediction models for 30 day readmission outcomes. Of a total of 21 time-point comparisons, ML-derived c-indices were higher than CSM-derived c-indices in 16 of the 21 comparisons. In seven studies, mortality was examined at 9 time points ranging from in-hospital mortality to 1 year survival; of these nine, seven reported higher c-indices using ML. Two of these seven studies reported survival analyses utilizing random survival forests in their ML prediction models. Both reported higher c-indices when using ML compared with CSMs. A limitation of studies using ML techniques was that the majority were not externally validated, and calibration was rarely assessed. In the only study that was externally validated in a separate dataset, ML was superior to CSMs (c-indices 0.913 vs. 0.835).ConclusionsML algorithms had better discrimination than CSMs in most studies aiming to predict risk of readmission and mortality in HF patients. Based on our review, there is a need for external validation of ML-based studies of prediction modelling. We suggest that ML-based studies should also be evaluated using clinical quality standards for prognosis research. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020134867.

Project description:AimsIndividual risk stratification is a fundamental strategy in managing patients with heart failure (HF). Artificial intelligence, particularly machine learning (ML), can develop superior models for predicting the prognosis of HF patients, and administrative claim data (ACD) are suitable for ML analysis because ACD is a structured database. The objective of this study was to analyse ACD using an ML algorithm, predict the 1 year mortality of patients with HF, and finally develop an easy-to-use prediction model with high accuracy using the top predictors identified by the ML algorithm.Methods and resultsMachine learning-based prognostic prediction models were developed from the ACD on 10 175 HF patients from the Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with 17% mortality during 1 year follow-up. The top predictors for prognosis in HF were identified by the permutation feature importance technique, and an easy-to-use prediction model was developed based on these predictors. The c-statistics and Brier scores of the developed ML-based models were compared with those of conventional risk models: Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC). A voting classifier algorithm (ACD-VC) achieved the highest c-statistics among the six ML algorithms. The permutation feature importance technique enabled identification of the top predictors such as Barthel index, age, body mass index, duration of hospitalization, last hospitalization, renal disease, and non-loop diuretics use (feature importance values were 0.054, 0.025, 0.010, 0.005, 0.005, 0.004, and 0.004, respectively). Upon combination of some of the predictors that can be assessed from a brief interview, the Simple Model by ARTificial intelligence for HF risk stratification (SMART-HF) was established as an easy-to-use prediction model. Compared with the conventional models, SMART-HF achieved a higher c-statistic {ACD-VC: 0.777 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.751-0.803], SMART-HF: 0.765 [95% CI 0.739-0.791], SHFM: 0.713 [95% CI 0.684-0.742], MAGGIC: 0.726 [95% CI 0.698-0.753]} and better Brier scores (ACD-VC: 0.121, SMART-HF: 0.124, SHFM: 0.139, MAGGIC: 0.130).ConclusionsThe ML model based on ACD predicted the 1 year mortality of HF patients with high accuracy, and SMART-HF along with the ML model achieved superior performance to that of the conventional risk models. The SMART-HF model has the clear merit of easy operability even by non-healthcare providers with a user-friendly online interface (https://hfriskcalculator.herokuapp.com/). Risk models developed using SMART-HF may provide a novel modality for risk stratification of patients with HF.

Project description:Background: Development of advanced heart failure (HF) symptoms is the most common adverse pathway in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients. Currently, there is a limited ability to identify HCM patients at risk of HF. Objectives: In this study, we present a machine learning (ML)-based model to identify individual HCM patients who are at high risk of developing advanced HF symptoms. Methods: From a consecutive cohort of HCM patients evaluated at the Tufts HCM Institute from 2001 to 2018, we extracted a set of 64 potential risk factors measured at baseline. Only patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I/II and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography >35% were included. The study cohort (n = 1,427 patients) was split into three disjoint subsets: development (50%), model selection (10%), and independent validation (40%). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator was used to select the most influential clinical variables. An ensemble of ML classifiers, including logistic regression, was used to identify patients with high risk of developing a HF outcome. Study outcomes were defined as progression to NYHA class III/IV, drop in LVEF below 35%, septal reduction procedure, and/or heart transplantation. Results: During a mean follow-up of 4.7 ± 3.7 years, advanced HF occurred in 283 (20% out of 1,427) patients. The model features included patients' sex, NYHA class (I or II), HCM type (i.e., obstructive or not), LV wall thickness, LVEF, presence of HF symptoms (e.g., dyspnea, presyncope), comorbidities (atrial fibrillation, hypertension, mitral regurgitation, and systolic anterior motion), and type of cardiac medications. The developed risk stratification model showed strong differentiation power to identify patients at advanced HF risk in the testing dataset (c-statistics = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.86). The model allowed correct identification of high-risk patients with accuracy 74% (CI: 0.70, 0.78), sensitivity 80% (CI: 0.77, 0.83), and specificity 72% (CI: 0.68, 0.76). The model performance was comparable among different sex and age groups. Conclusions: A 5-year risk prediction of progressive HF in HCM patients can be accurately estimated using ML analysis of patients' clinical and imaging parameters. A set of 17 clinical and imaging variables were identified as the most important predictors of progressive HF in HCM.

Project description:AimsFrailty may be found in heart failure patients especially in the elderly and is associated with a poor prognosis. However, assessment of frailty status is time-consuming, and the electronic frailty indices developed using health records have served as useful surrogates. We hypothesized that an electronic frailty index developed using machine learning can improve short-term mortality prediction in patients with heart failure.Methods and resultsThis was a retrospective observational study that included patients admitted to nine public hospitals for heart failure from Hong Kong between 2013 and 2017. Age, sex, variables in the modified frailty index, Deyo's Charlson co-morbidity index (≥2), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and prognostic nutritional index at baseline were analysed. Gradient boosting, which is a supervised sequential ensemble learning algorithm with weak prediction submodels (typically decision trees), was applied to predict mortality. Variables were ranked in the order of importance with a total score of 100 and used to build the frailty models. Comparisons were made with decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 8893 patients (median: age 81, Q1-Q3: 71-87 years old) were included, in whom 9% had 30 day mortality and 17% had 90 day mortality. Prognostic nutritional index, age, and NLR were the most important variables predicting 30 day mortality (importance score: 37.4, 32.1, and 20.5, respectively) and 90 day mortality (importance score: 35.3, 36.3, and 14.6, respectively). Gradient boosting significantly outperformed decision tree and multivariable logistic regression. The area under the curve from a five-fold cross validation was 0.90 for gradient boosting and 0.87 and 0.86 for decision tree and logistic regression in predicting 30 day mortality. For the prediction of 90 day mortality, the area under the curve was 0.92, 0.89, and 0.86 for gradient boosting, decision tree, and logistic regression, respectively.ConclusionsThe electronic frailty index based on co-morbidities, inflammation, and nutrition information can readily predict mortality outcomes. Their predictive performances were significantly improved by gradient boosting techniques.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate prediction models for whether patients on the verge of a psychiatric criseis need hospitalization are lacking and machine learning methods may help improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms, including the generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact. We also evaluate an ensemble model to optimize the accuracy and we explore individual predictors of hospitalization.MethodsData from 2084 patients included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact were included. Target variable for the prediction models was whether the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion. The predictive power of 39 variables related to patients' socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts was evaluated. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared and we also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis and the five best performing algorithms were combined in an ensemble model using stacking.ResultsAll models performed above chance level. We found Gradient Boosting to be the best performing algorithm (AUC = 0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors to be the least performing (AUC = 0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC = 0.76) was slightly above average among the tested algorithms. In a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression by 2.9% and K-Nearest Neighbors by 11.3%. GLM/logistic regression outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors by 8.7%. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use.ConclusionsGradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was in most cases modest. The results show that a predictive accuracy similar to the best performing model can be achieved when combining multiple algorithms in an ensemble model.