MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391113254 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073455

Predicting incident heart failure from population-based nationwide electronic health records: protocol for a model development and validation study

2024· article· en· W4391113254 on OpenAlexaff
Yoko M. Nakao, Ramesh Nadarajah, Farag Shuweihdi, Kazuhiro Nakao, Ahmet Fuat, Jim Moore, Chris Bates, Jianhua Wu, Chris P Gale

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)EpidemiologyHealth recordsElectronic health recordPublic healthPopulationHeart failureMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineHealth careInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is increasingly common and associated with excess morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Treatment of HF can alter the disease trajectory and reduce clinical events in HF. However, many cases of HF remain undetected until presentation with more advanced symptoms, often requiring hospitalisation. Predicting incident HF is challenging and statistical models are limited by performance and scalability in routine clinical practice. An HF prediction model implementable in nationwide electronic health records (EHRs) could enable targeted diagnostics to enable earlier identification of HF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will investigate a range of development techniques (including logistic regression and supervised machine learning methods) on routinely collected primary care EHRs to predict risk of new-onset HF over 1, 5 and 10 years prediction horizons. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)-GOLD dataset will be used for derivation (training and testing) and the CPRD-AURUM dataset for external validation. Both comprise large cohorts of patients, representative of the population of England in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. Primary care records are linked at patient level to secondary care and mortality data. The performance of the prediction model will be assessed by discrimination, calibration and clinical utility. We will only use variables routinely accessible in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Permissions for CPRD-GOLD and CPRD-AURUM datasets were obtained from CPRD (ref no: 21_000324). The CPRD ethical approval committee approved the study. The results will be submitted as a research paper for publication to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at peer-reviewed conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The study was registered on Clinical Trials.gov (NCT05756127). A systematic review for the project was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022380892).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207