Literature DB >> 28263938

Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques for Heart Failure Readmissions.

Bobak J Mortazavi1, Nicholas S Downing1, Emily M Bucholz1, Kumar Dharmarajan1, Ajay Manhapra1, Shu-Xia Li1, Sahand N Negahban1, Harlan M Krumholz2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The current ability to predict readmissions in patients with heart failure is modest at best. It is unclear whether machine learning techniques that address higher dimensional, nonlinear relationships among variables would enhance prediction. We sought to compare the effectiveness of several machine learning algorithms for predicting readmissions. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Using data from the Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes trial, we compared the effectiveness of random forests, boosting, random forests combined hierarchically with support vector machines or logistic regression (LR), and Poisson regression against traditional LR to predict 30- and 180-day all-cause readmissions and readmissions because of heart failure. We randomly selected 50% of patients for a derivation set, and a validation set comprised the remaining patients, validated using 100 bootstrapped iterations. We compared C statistics for discrimination and distributions of observed outcomes in risk deciles for predictive range. In 30-day all-cause readmission prediction, the best performing machine learning model, random forests, provided a 17.8% improvement over LR (mean C statistics, 0.628 and 0.533, respectively). For readmissions because of heart failure, boosting improved the C statistic by 24.9% over LR (mean C statistic 0.678 and 0.543, respectively). For 30-day all-cause readmission, the observed readmission rates in the lowest and highest deciles of predicted risk with random forests (7.8% and 26.2%, respectively) showed a much wider separation than LR (14.2% and 16.4%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning methods improved the prediction of readmission after hospitalization for heart failure compared with LR and provided the greatest predictive range in observed readmission rates.
© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  computers; heart failure; machine learning; meta-analysis; patient readmission

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28263938      PMCID: PMC5459389          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes        ISSN: 1941-7713


  24 in total

1.  An automated model to identify heart failure patients at risk for 30-day readmission or death using electronic medical record data.

Authors:  Ruben Amarasingham; Billy J Moore; Ying P Tabak; Mark H Drazner; Christopher A Clark; Song Zhang; W Gary Reed; Timothy S Swanson; Ying Ma; Ethan A Halm
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Risk prediction tools in patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Josep Lupón; Joan Vila; Antoni Bayes-Genis
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 12.035

3.  Predicting risk of hospitalization or death among patients with heart failure in the veterans health administration.

Authors:  Li Wang; Brian Porter; Charles Maynard; Christopher Bryson; Haili Sun; Elliott Lowy; Mary McDonell; Kathleen Frisbee; Christopher Nielson; Stephan D Fihn
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Heart failure risk prediction models: what have we learned?

Authors:  Wayne C Levy; Inder S Anand
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 12.035

5.  Strategies to Reduce 30-Day Readmissions in Older Patients Hospitalized with Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Kumar Dharmarajan; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Curr Geriatr Rep       Date:  2014-12-01

6.  A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data.

Authors:  Bjoern H Menze; B Michael Kelm; Ralf Masuch; Uwe Himmelreich; Peter Bachert; Wolfgang Petrich; Fred A Hamprecht
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-07-10       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 7.  Statistical models and patient predictors of readmission for heart failure: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Gregory K Mulvey; Brett Stauffer; Vishnu Patlolla; Susannah M Bernheim; Patricia S Keenan; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-14

Review 8.  Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Zheyu Wang; Holly Janes; Robyn L McClelland; Bruce M Psaty; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  A comprehensive comparison of random forests and support vector machines for microarray-based cancer classification.

Authors:  Alexander Statnikov; Lily Wang; Constantin F Aliferis
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 10.  Risk prediction in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and analysis.

Authors:  Kazem Rahimi; Derrick Bennett; Nathalie Conrad; Timothy M Williams; Joyee Basu; Jeremy Dwight; Mark Woodward; Anushka Patel; John McMurray; Stephen MacMahon
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 12.035

View more
  79 in total

1.  The Promise of Big Data: Opportunities and Challenges.

Authors:  Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

2.  Outpatient versus inpatient worsening heart failure: distinguishing biology and risk from location of care.

Authors:  Stephen J Greene; G Michael Felker; Javed Butler
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 15.534

3.  Machine learning in 'big data': handle with care.

Authors:  Zak Loring; Suchit Mehrotra; Jonathan P Piccini
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 5.214

4.  Etiological Role of Diet in 30-Day Readmissions for Heart Failure: Implications for Reducing Heart Failure-Associated Costs via Culinary Medicine.

Authors:  Alexander C Razavi; Dominique J Monlezun; Alexander Sapin; Leah Sarris; Emily Schlag; Amber Dyer; Timothy Harlan
Journal:  Am J Lifestyle Med       Date:  2019-07-14

5.  Prediction of Incident Delirium Using a Random Forest classifier.

Authors:  John P Corradi; Stephen Thompson; Jeffrey F Mather; Christine M Waszynski; Robert S Dicks
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.

Authors:  William J Gibson; Tarek Nafee; Ryan Travis; Megan Yee; Mathieu Kerneis; Magnus Ohman; C Michael Gibson
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.300

7.  Recommendations for Reporting Machine Learning Analyses in Clinical Research.

Authors:  Laura M Stevens; Bobak J Mortazavi; Rahul C Deo; Lesley Curtis; David P Kao
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-10-14

8.  Interactive Cost-benefit Analysis: Providing Real-World Financial Context to Predictive Analytics.

Authors:  Mark G Weiner; Wasiq Sheikh; Harold P Lehmann
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

Review 9.  Machine learning for predicting cardiac events: what does the future hold?

Authors:  Brijesh Patel; Partho Sengupta
Journal:  Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2020-02-23

10.  A Survey of Challenges and Opportunities in Sensing and Analytics for Risk Factors of Cardiovascular Disorders.

Authors:  Nathan C Hurley; Erica S Spatz; Harlan M Krumholz; Roozbeh Jafari; Bobak J Mortazavi
Journal:  ACM Trans Comput Healthc       Date:  2020-12-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.