Multi-Modality Machine Learning Approach for Risk Stratification in Heart Failure with Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ≤ 45%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Heart failure (HF) involves complex remodelling leading to electrical and mechanical dysfunction. We hypothesized that machine learning approaches incorporating data obtained from different investigative modalities including atrial and ventricular measurements from electrocardiography and echocardiography, blood inflammatory marker [neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)], and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) will improve risk stratification for adverse outcomes in HF compared to logistic regression. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive Chinese patients referred to our centre for transthoracic echocardiography and subsequently diagnosed with HF, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016, were included in this study. Two machine learning techniques, multilayer perceptron and multi-task learning, were compared with logistic regression for their ability to predict incident atrial fibrillation (AF), transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke, and all-cause mortality. This study included 312 HF patients [mean age: 64 (55-73) years, 75% male]. There were 76 cases of new-onset AF, 62 cases of incident TIA/stroke, and 117 deaths during follow-up. Univariate analysis revealed that age, left atrial reservoir strain (LARS) and contractile strain (LACS) were significant predictors of new-onset AF. Age and smoking predicted incident stroke. Age, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, mitral or aortic regurgitation, P-wave terminal force in V1, the presence of partial inter-atrial block, left atrial diameter, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, serum creatinine and albumin, high NLR, low PNI, and LARS and LACS predicted all-cause mortality. Machine learning techniques achieved better prediction performance than logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-modality assessment is important for risk stratification in HF. A machine learning approach provides additional value for improving outcome prediction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".