Recurrent disease progression networks for modelling risk trajectory of heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Recurrent neural networks (RNN) are powerful frameworks to model medical time series records. Recent studies showed improved accuracy of predicting future medical events (e.g., readmission, mortality) by leveraging large amount of high-dimensional data. However, very few studies have explored the ability of RNN in predicting long-term trajectories of recurrent events, which is more informative than predicting one single event in directing medical intervention. METHODS: In this study, we focus on heart failure (HF) which is the leading cause of death among cardiovascular diseases. We present a novel RNN framework named Deep Heart-failure Trajectory Model (DHTM) for modelling the long-term trajectories of recurrent HF. DHTM auto-regressively predicts the future HF onsets of each patient and uses the predicted HF as input to predict the HF event at the next time point. Furthermore, we propose an augmented DHTM named DHTM+C (where "C" stands for co-morbidities), which jointly predicts both the HF and a set of acute co-morbidities diagnoses. To efficiently train the DHTM+C model, we devised a novel RNN architecture to model disease progression implicated in the co-morbidities. RESULTS: Our deep learning models confers higher prediction accuracy for both the next-step HF prediction and the HF trajectory prediction compared to the baseline non-neural network models and the baseline RNN model. Compared to DHTM, DHTM+C is able to output higher probability of HF for high-risk patients, even in cases where it is only given less than 2 years of data to predict over 5 years of trajectory. We illustrated multiple non-trivial real patient examples of complex HF trajectories, indicating a promising path for creating highly accurate and scalable longitudinal deep learning models for modeling the chronic disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".