Cited by 361Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementMachine Learning in Healthcare

Interpretable prediction of 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure caused by coronary heart disease based on machine learning and SHAP

Open access
Wang, Ke, Tian, Jing, Zheng, Chu, Yang, Hong, Ren, Jia, Liu, Yanling, Han, Qinghua, Zhang, Yanbo·2021·Computers in Biology and Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) models and establish an explainable ML model with good prediction of 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) caused by coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: We established six ML models using follow-up data to predict 3-year all-cause mortality. Through comprehensive evaluation, the best performing model was used to predict and stratify patients. The log-rank test was used to assess the difference between Kaplan-Meier curves. The association between ML risk and 3-year all-cause mortality was also assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Finally, an explainable approach based on ML and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was deployed to calculate 3-year all-cause mortality risk and to generate individual explanations of the model's decisions. RESULTS: The best performing extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model was selected to predict and stratify patients. Subjects with a higher ML score had a high hazard of suffering events (hazard ratio [HR]: 10.351; P < 0.001), and this relationship persisted with a multivariable analysis (adjusted HR: 5.343; P < 0.001). Age, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, occupation, New York Heart Association classification, and nitrate drug use were important factors for both genders. CONCLUSIONS: The ML-based risk stratification tool was able to accurately assess and stratify the risk of 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with HF caused by CHD. ML combined with SHAP could provide an explicit explanation of individualized risk prediction and give physicians an intuitive understanding of the influence of key features in the model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104813

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. A. Alba, T. Agoritsas, M. Jankowski, et al., Risk prediction models for mortality in ambulatory patients with heart failure: a systematic review, Circulation Heart Failure 6 (5) (2013) 881-889.
  2. M. Athanasiou, K. Sfrintzeri, K. Zarkogianni, et al., An Explainable XGBoost-Based Approach towards Assessing the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus[C]//2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), IEEE, 2020.
  3. A. Singh, N. Thakur, A. Sharma, A review of supervised machine learning algorithms, in: 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 2016, 1310-5. IEEE; 2016.
  4. T. Chen, C. Guestrin, XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, New York, 2016, pp. 785-794.
  5. G.E.A.P.A. Batista, R.C. Prati, M.C. Monard, A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing ML training data, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 6 (1) (2004) 20.
  6. A. Azeez, Adeola Ogunleye, et al., XGBoost model for chronic kidney disease diagnosis, IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf 17 (6) (2020) 2131-2140.
  7. M. Li, X. Fu, D. Li, Diabetes prediction based on XGBoost algorithm, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 768 (7) (2020), 072093 (7pp).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, K., Tian, J., Zheng, C., Yang, H., Ren, J., Liu, Y., Han, Q., & Zhang, Y.
Affiliations
Shanxi Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Han, Qinghua
  • Zhang, Yanbo
Venue
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
137
Pages
104813
ISSN
0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3196831580
Cited by
361
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 124 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
35.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81872714, 82173631)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
heart failure, coronary artery disease, all-cause mortality, mortality prediction, risk stratification, SHAP, explainable machine learning, XGBoost, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, New York Heart Association classification, personalized risk prediction
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Coronary Disease, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review