Artificial Intelligence and Heart Failure: A State-of-the-Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome affecting more than 60 million individuals globally. Despite recent advancements in understanding of the pathophysiology of HF, many issues remain including residual risk despite therapy, understanding the pathophysiology and phenotypes of patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction, and the challenges related to integrating a large amount of disparate information available for risk stratification and management of these patients. Risk prediction algorithms based on artificial intelligence (AI) may have superior predictive ability compared to traditional methods in certain instances. AI algorithms can play a pivotal role in the evolution of HF care by facilitating clinical decision making to overcome various challenges such as allocation of treatment to patients who are at highest risk or are more likely to benefit from therapies, prediction of adverse outcomes, and early identification of patients with subclinical disease or worsening HF. With the ability to integrate and synthesize large amounts of data with multidimensional interactions, AI algorithms can supply information with which physicians can improve their ability to make timely and better decisions. In this review, we provide an overview of the AI algorithms that have been developed for establishing early diagnosis of HF, phenotyping HF with preserved ejection fraction, and stratifying HF disease severity. This review also discusses the challenges in clinical deployment of AI algorithms in HF, and the potential path forward for developing future novel learning-based algorithms to improve HF care.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".