Machine Learning Risk Prediction for Incident Heart Failure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of heart failure (HF); however, little focus is placed on the risk stratification for, and prevention of, incident HF in patients with AF. This study aimed to construct and validate a machine learning (ML) prediction model for HF hospitalization in patients with AF. The Fushimi AF Registry is a community-based prospective survey of patients with AF in Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, Japan. We divided the data set of the registry into derivation (n = 2,383) and validation (n = 2,011) cohorts. An ML model was built to predict the incidence of HF hospitalization using the derivation cohort, and predictive ability was examined using the validation cohort. HF hospitalization occurred in 606 patients (14%) during a median follow-up period of 4.4 years in the entire registry. Data of transthoracic echocardiography and biomarkers were frequently nominated as important predictive variables across all 6 ML models. The ML model based on a random forest algorithm using 7 variables (age, history of HF, creatinine clearance, cardiothoracic ratio on x-ray, left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction, LV end-systolic diameter, and LV asynergy) had high prediction performance (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC]: 0.75) and was significantly superior to the Framingham HF risk model (AUC: 0.67; P < 0.001). Based on Kaplan-Meier curves, the ML model could stratify the risk of HF hospitalization during the follow-up period (log-rank; P < 0.001). The ML model revealed important predictors and helped us to stratify the risk of HF, providing opportunities for the prevention of HF in patients with AF.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".