Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation: evaluation of a machine learning risk prediction algorithm
Open accessAbstract
Aims: As many cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) are asymptomatic, patients often remain undiagnosed until complications (e.g. stroke) manifest. Risk-prediction algorithms may help to efficiently identify people with undiagnosed AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening, informed by a machine learning (ML) risk prediction algorithm, to identify patients with AF.Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken utilizing a hybrid screening decision tree and Markov disease progression model. Costs and outcomes associated with the detection of AF compared traditional systematic and opportunistic AF screening strategies to targeted screening informed by a ML risk prediction algorithm. Model analyses were based on adults ≥50 years and adopted the UK NHS perspective.Results: Targeted screening using the ML risk prediction algorithm required fewer patients to be screened (61 per 1,000 patients, compared to 534 and 687 patients in the systematic and opportunistic strategies) and detected more AF cases (11 per 1,000 patients, compared to 6 and 8 AF cases in the systematic and opportunistic screening strategies). The targeted approach demonstrated cost-effectiveness under base case settings (cost per QALY gained of £4,847 and £5,544 against systematic and opportunistic screening respectively). The targeted screening strategy was predicted to provide an additional 3.40 and 2.05 QALYs per 1,000 patients screened versus systematic and opportunistic strategies. The targeted screening strategy remained cost-effective in all scenarios evaluated.Limitations: The analysis relied on assumptions that include the extended period of patient life span and the lack of consideration for treatment discontinuations/switching, as well as the assumption that the ML risk-prediction algorithm will identify asymptomatic AF.Conclusions: Targeted screening using a ML risk prediction algorithm has the potential to enhance the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AF screening, improving health outcomes through efficient use of limited healthcare resources.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sensitivity analyses in the AF screening study and the breast cancer screening evaluation confirmed that the economic benefits of AI are robust as long as key parameters (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, technology costs) remain within specified ranges.
“sensitivity analyses in the AF screening study (Hill et al.26) and the breast cancer screening evaluation (Mital and Nguyen)34 confirmed that the economic benefits of AI are robust as long as key parameters (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, technology costs) remain within specified ranges”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Hill et al.26
Studies in AF screening, colonoscopy, and medication management consistently reported low ICERs and substantial per-patient cost reductions relative to conventional care.
“studies in AF screening26, colonoscopy20, and medication management27 consistently reported low ICERs and substantial per-patient cost reductions relative to conventional care.”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
Hill et al. illustrated how incremental improvements in diagnostic precision markedly reduced unnecessary interventions and improved economic outcomes.
“Hill et al.26 illustrated how incremental improvements in diagnostic precision markedly reduced unnecessary interventions and improved economic outcomes”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Hill et al.26
Hill et al. reported that an ML-based risk prediction algorithm for AF screening achieved ICERs between £4847 and £5544 per QALY gained, substantially lower than the NHS threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, by reducing the number of screenings required.
“Hill et al.26 reported that an ML-based risk prediction algorithm achieved ICERs ranging between £4847 and £5544 per QALY gained—substantially lower than the NHS threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained—by effectively reducing the number of screenings required26.”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Hill et al.26
Hill et al. and van Leeuwen et al. used lifetime QALY projections based on stroke or atrial fibrillation risk reduction.
“Hill et al.26 and van Leeuwen et al.37 used lifetime QALY projections based on stroke or atrial fibrillation risk reduction.”
From Systematic review of cost effectiveness and budget impact of artificial intelligence in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as Hill et al.26
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Hill, N. R., Sandler, B., Mokgokong, R., Lister, S., Ward, T., Boyce, R., Farooqui, U., & Gordon, J.
- Affiliations
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Pfizer (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Health Economics and Outcomes Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hill, Nathan R.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Economics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-01-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 386-393
- ISSN
- 1369-6998 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-837X
- OpenAlex
- W2994641469
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
- Keywords
- atrial fibrillation, targeted screening, cost-effectiveness, asymptomatic atrial fibrillation, stroke prevention, systematic screening, opportunistic screening, cost per QALY, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Undiagnosed Diseases, Algorithms, Atrial Fibrillation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Trees, United Kingdom, Humans, Markov Chains, Mass Screening, Risk Assessment, Quality-Adjusted Life Years
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