MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413420910 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-16376-9

Machine learning enhanced expert system for detecting heart failure decompensation using patient reported vitals and electronic health records

2025· article· en· W4413420910 on OpenAlexafffund
Shumit Saha, Heather J. Ross, Pedro Elkind Velmovitsky, Chloe X. Wang, Julie K.K. Vishram‐Nielsen, Cedric Manlhiot, Bo Wang, Joseph A Cafazzo

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity Health Network
KeywordsDecompensationHealth recordsComputer scienceElectronic health recordHeart failureArtificial intelligenceMedicineMachine learningMedical emergencyInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure (HF) is a condition with periods of stability interrupted by periods of worsening symptoms, known as decompensation episodes. Digital interventions are promising tools to alleviate burdens on HF management through automated alerts at the earliest decompensation sign. To accomplish this, our lab developed Medly, an expert system-enhanced digital therapeutic program for HF patients. Medly's algorithm is a knowledge-based system that analyzes weight, blood pressure, and heart rate and sends automated alerts to clinicians and patients if deterioration is identified. Rules were set conservatively to account for false negatives. However, reducing false negatives resulted in an increase in false positives, which can lead to unnecessary clinical workload. Further, patients' electronic health records (EHR) were not used when developing the rules-based algorithm. This study aimed to enhance Medly's performance with machine learning and include a richer set of data, including EHR, for predicting decompensated HF episodes. We performed a retrospective study using XGBoost for the binary classification of whether the patient needed to be contacted for a possible decompensation episode. Features included blood pressure, weight change, heart rate, and EHR data (e.g., blood work, medication history). We further performed interpretability analysis to investigate the importance of including EHR data in the model. The enhanced algorithm achieved 98.08% accuracy, 95.26% sensitivity, 98.86% specificity, and a PPV of 88.18% - a marked improvement over the 55.8% in the rules-based algorithm. EHR data, mainly B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and total cholesterol, was crucial in predicting decompensation and correcting false-positive alerting.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207