Characterization of Inclination Analysis for Predicting Onset of Heart Failure from Primary Care Electronic Medical Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to characterize the performance of an inclination analysis for predicting the onset of heart failure (HF) from routinely collected clinical biomarkers extracted from primary care electronic medical records. A balanced dataset of 698 patients (with/without HF), including a minimum of five longitudinal measures of nine biomarkers (body mass index, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, low-density and high-density lipoproteins, total cholesterol, and triglycerides) is used. The proposed algorithm achieves an accuracy of 0.89 (sensitivity of 0.89, specificity of 0.90) to predict the inclination of biomarkers (i.e., their trend towards a 'survival' or 'collapse' as defined by an inclination analysis) on a labeled, balanced dataset of 40 patients. Decision trees trained on the predicted inclination of biomarkers have significantly higher recall (0.69 vs. 0.53) and significantly higher negative predictive value (0.60 vs. 0.55) than those trained on the average values computed from the measures of biomarkers available before the onset of the disease, suggesting that an inclination analysis can help identify the onset of HF in the primary care patient population from routinely available clinical data. This exploratory study provides the basis for further investigations of inclination analyses to identify at-risk patients and generate preventive measures (i.e., personalized recommendations to reverse the trend of biomarkers towards collapse).
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".