Derivation of an electronic frailty index for short-term mortality in heart failure: a machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Frailty 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 This was a retrospective observational study 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 comorbidity index (≥2), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) were analyzed. Gradient boosting, which is a supervised sequential ensemble learning algorithm with weak prediction submodels (typically decision trees), was applied to predict mortality. Comparisons were made with decision tree and multivariate logistic regression. Results 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. PNI, age and NLR were the most important variables predicting 30-day mortality (importance score: 37.4, 32.1, 20.5, respectively) and 90-day mortality (importance score: 35.3, 36.3, 14.6, respectively). Gradient boosting significantly outperformed decision tree and multivariate logistic regression (area under the curve: 0.90, 0.86 and 0.86 for 30-day mortality; 0.92, 0.89 and 0.86 for 90-day mortality). Conclusions The electronic frailty index based on comorbidities, inflammation and nutrition information can readily predict mortality outcomes. Their predictive performances were significantly improved by gradient boosting techniques.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".