MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162001347 · doi:10.82308/4052

Predictive modeling for adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure

2024· dissertation· en· W7162001347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samaneh Salimian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureProportional hazards modelHazard ratioImputation (statistics)CohortMissing dataPrognostic modelCohort studySelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart failure (HF) readmission and mortality rates remain high among patients with HF despite treatment advancements. Robust risk prediction models enable better monitoring, informed decision-making, targeted interventions, and improved outcome. The previous models have limitations including the use of non-contemporary cohorts for model development, lack of robust validations, and short follow-up times. Furthermore, the naïve model selection procedures employed also render these models susceptible to biases. Consequently, there is uncertainty regarding the utility of these models for predicting current long-term outcomes at the bedside in clinical settings.In this thesis, using a contemporary dataset from the VancOuver CoastAL Acute Heart Failure (VOCAL-AHF) registry with an extended follow-up time between April 1st 2015 to March 31st 2019 and an integrated approach to model selection (combining backward selection, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and expert opinion) we sought to overcome previous model limitations. Our primary outcome was the composite incidence of all-cause mortality or first HF recurrent hospital readmission. The cohort was comprised of 1,842 patients >18 years discharged alive following unplanned hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of HF. The data included baseline characteristics and comorbidities, examination findings, laboratory results, ECG and echocardiography results, procedures, and discharge medications. Multiple imputation (n=5) was used to address missing data. Hazard ratios were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model. To account for uncertainty and improve generalizability, bootstrap Bayesian model averaging was used to derive the final risk model.Median follow-up time was 529 days (range 2-1459). 790 (43%) patients experienced the outcome, with 8.6% having the outcome within 30 days. Occurrences of events were observed to be more frequent in older individuals (76 vs 72 years, p<0.001) with underlying disease such as diabetes (42% vs 35%, p<0.003), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL, 61% vs 50%, p< 0.001), and a previous HF diagnosis or hospitalization (62% vs 45%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the proportion of females between those with outcomes (44%) and those without outcomes (42%). The final risk model included 13 variables, of which seven were identified as the most important factors (with a posterior probability of >80%). Older age, prior HF diagnosis or HF-hospitalization, lower discharge hemoglobin level, absence of discharge prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), increased dose of loop-diuretic at discharge, decreased systolic blood pressure at admission, and smoking significantly increased the risk of death or HF readmission risk over the follow-up time. Other variables with lower posterior probabilities were ranked as follows: AF/AFL rhythm at admission, urea at discharge, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, triple guideline-directed medical therapy, and serum potassium at discharge. The C-statistic for the model was 0.65.In this thesis, a clinically-oriented model for predicting HF hospitalization or death was developed. Further validation, both internally and externally, is needed to ensure the robustness and generalizability of the model for clinical use

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→