Predicting heart failure outcomes by integrating breath-by-breath measurements from cardiopulmonary exercise testing and clinical data through a deep learning survival neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Mathematical models previously developed to predict outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) generally have limited performance and have yet to integrate complex data derived from cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), including breath-by-breath data. We aimed to develop and validate a time-to-event prediction model using a deep learning framework using the DeepSurv algorithm to predict outcomes of HF. Methods and results: Inception cohort of 2490 adult patients with high-risk cardiac conditions or HF underwent CPET with breath-by-breath measurements. Potential predictive features included known clinical indicators, standard summary statistics from CPETs, and mathematical features extracted from the breath-by-breath time series of 13 measurements. The primary outcome was a composite of death, heart transplant, or mechanical circulatory support treated as a time-to-event outcomes. Predictive features ranked as most important included many of the features engineered from the breath-by-breath data in addition to traditional clinical risk factors. The prediction model showed excellent performance in predicting the composite outcome with an area under the curve of 0.93 in the training and 0.87 in the validation data sets. Both the predicted vs. actual freedom from the composite outcome and the calibration of the prediction model were excellent. Model performance remained stable in multiple subgroups of patients. Conclusion: Using a combined deep learning and survival algorithm, integrating breath-by-breath data from CPETs resulted in improved predictive accuracy for long-term (up to 10 years) outcomes in HF. DeepSurv opens the door for future prediction models that are both highly performing and can more fully use the large and complex quantity of data generated during the care of patients with HF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".