Predictive modeling for adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Heart failure (HF) readmission and mortality rates remain high among patients with HF despite treatment advancements. Robust risk prediction models enable better monitoring, informed decision-making, targeted interventions, and improved outcome. The previous models have limitations including the use of non-contemporary cohorts for model development, lack of robust validations, and short follow-up times. Furthermore, the naïve model selection procedures employed also render these models susceptible to biases. Consequently, there is uncertainty regarding the utility of these models for predicting current long-term outcomes at the bedside in clinical settings.In this thesis, using a contemporary dataset from the VancOuver CoastAL Acute Heart Failure (VOCAL-AHF) registry with an extended follow-up time between April 1st 2015 to March 31st 2019 and an integrated approach to model selection (combining backward selection, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and expert opinion) we sought to overcome previous model limitations. Our primary outcome was the composite incidence of all-cause mortality or first HF recurrent hospital readmission. The cohort was comprised of 1,842 patients >18 years discharged alive following unplanned hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of HF. The data included baseline characteristics and comorbidities, examination findings, laboratory results, ECG and echocardiography results, procedures, and discharge medications. Multiple imputation (n=5) was used to address missing data. Hazard ratios were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model. To account for uncertainty and improve generalizability, bootstrap Bayesian model averaging was used to derive the final risk model.Median follow-up time was 529 days (range 2-1459). 790 (43%) patients experienced the outcome, with 8.6% having the outcome within 30 days. Occurrences of events were observed to be more frequent in older individuals (76 vs 72 years, p<0.001) with underlying disease such as diabetes (42% vs 35%, p<0.003), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL, 61% vs 50%, p< 0.001), and a previous HF diagnosis or hospitalization (62% vs 45%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the proportion of females between those with outcomes (44%) and those without outcomes (42%). The final risk model included 13 variables, of which seven were identified as the most important factors (with a posterior probability of >80%). Older age, prior HF diagnosis or HF-hospitalization, lower discharge hemoglobin level, absence of discharge prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), increased dose of loop-diuretic at discharge, decreased systolic blood pressure at admission, and smoking significantly increased the risk of death or HF readmission risk over the follow-up time. Other variables with lower posterior probabilities were ranked as follows: AF/AFL rhythm at admission, urea at discharge, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, triple guideline-directed medical therapy, and serum potassium at discharge. The C-statistic for the model was 0.65.In this thesis, a clinically-oriented model for predicting HF hospitalization or death was developed. Further validation, both internally and externally, is needed to ensure the robustness and generalizability of the model for clinical use
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».