MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401715495 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.15027

Unsupervised Machine Learning to Identify Subphenotypes Among Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients with Heart Failure

2024· article· en· W4401715495 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob C. Jentzer, Yogesh N.V. Reddy, Sabri Soussi, Ruben Crespo‐Diaz, Parag C. Patel, Patrick R. Lawler, Alexandre Mebazaa, Shannon M. Dunlay

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureCoronary care unitIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineCohortPopulationIntensive careInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) are a heterogeneous population, with multiple phenotypes proposed. Prior studies have not examined the biological phenotypes of critically ill patients with HF admitted to the contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We aimed to leverage unsupervised machine learning to identify previously unknown HF phenotypes in a large and diverse cohort of patients with HF admitted to the CICU. METHODS: We screened 6008 Mayo Clinic CICU patients with an admission diagnosis of HF from 2007 to 2018 and included those without missing values for common laboratory tests. Consensus k-means clustering was performed based on 10 common admission laboratory values (potassium, chloride, anion gap, blood urea nitrogen, haemoglobin, red blood cell distribution width, mean corpuscular volume, platelet count, white blood cell count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio). In-hospital mortality was evaluated using logistic regression, and 1 year mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models after multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: Among 4877 CICU patients with HF who had complete admission laboratory data (mean age 69.4 years, 38.4% females), we identified five clusters with divergent demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, admission diagnoses and use of critical care therapies. We labelled these clusters based on the characteristic laboratory profile of each group: uncomplicated (25.7%), iron-deficient (14.5%), cardiorenal (18.4%), inflamed (22.3%) and hypoperfused (19.2%). In-hospital mortality occurred in 10.7% and differed between the phenotypes: uncomplicated, 2.7% (reference); iron-deficient, 8.1% [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.18 (1.38-3.48), P < 0.001]; cardiorenal, 10.3% [adjusted OR 2.11 (1.37-3.32), P < 0.001]; inflamed, 12.5% [adjusted OR 1.79 (1.18-2.76), P = 0.007]; and hypoperfused, 21.9% [adjusted OR 4.32 (2.89-6.62), P < 0.001]. These differences in mortality between phenotypes were consistent when patients were stratified based on demographics, aetiology, admission diagnoses, mortality risk scores, shock severity and systolic function. One-year mortality occurred in 31.5% and differed between the phenotypes: uncomplicated, 11.9% (reference); inflamed, 26.8% [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (1.27-1.92), P < 0.001]; iron-deficient, 33.8% [adjusted HR 2.47 (2.00-3.04), P < 0.001]; cardiorenal, 41.2% [adjusted HR 2.41 (1.97-2.95), P < 0.001]; and hypoperfused, 52.3% [adjusted HR 3.43 (2.82-4.18), P < 0.001]. Similar findings were observed for post-discharge 1 year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised machine learning clustering can identify multiple distinct clinical HF phenotypes within the CICU population that display differing mortality profiles both in-hospital and at 1 year. Mortality was lowest for the uncomplicated HF phenotype and highest for the hypoperfused phenotype. The inflamed phenotype had comparatively higher in-hospital mortality yet lower post-discharge mortality, suggesting divergent short-term and long-term prognosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207