Cited by 402Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementMachine Learning in Healthcare

Analysis of machine learning techniques for heart failure readmissions

Open access
Mortazavi, Bobak J., Downing, Nicholas S., Bucholz, Emily M., Dharmarajan, Kumar, Manhapra, Ajay, Li, Shu-Xia, Negahban, Sahand N., Krumholz, Harlan M.·2016·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

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.

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 · 10.1161/circoutcomes.116.003039

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • AI applied to electronic patient records predicts the risk of cardiovascular disease, such as acute coronary syndrome and heart failure, better than traditional scales.

    “Applied to electronic patient records, AI has been used to predict the risk of cardiovascular disease, for instance acute coronary syndrome (22) and heart failure (23) better than traditional scales.”

    From Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Today and Tomorrow (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Conclusions report that machine-learning methods improved prediction of readmission after heart-failure hospitalization compared with logistic regression. But the Methods describe a Tele-HF trial dataset combining medical-record abstractions with surveys and examinations, not solely electronic patient records; the outcome was readmission, not the broader risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The acute-coronary-syndrome example is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mortazavi, B. J., Downing, N. S., Bucholz, E. M., Dharmarajan, K., Manhapra, A., Li, S.-X., Negahban, S. N., & Krumholz, H. M.
Affiliations
Yale New Haven Hospital (US)
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2016-11
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
629-640
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2549885908
Cited by
401
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
43.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Federation for Aging Research
  • Yale University
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG048331)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL105270, R01HL080228)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R25DA033211)
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, hospital readmission prediction, machine learning, random forest, boosting, support vector machine, Poisson regression, logistic regression, all-cause readmission, heart failure readmission, remote patient monitoring, risk prediction
MeSH terms
Aged, Algorithms, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Readmission, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Telemedicine, Nonlinear Dynamics, Risk Assessment, Data Mining, Support Vector Machine

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