Cited by 40Machine Learning in HealthcareHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the Prognostic Evaluation Precision of Hospital Outcomes for Heart Failure Using Admission Notes and Clinical Tabular Data: Multimodal Deep Learning Model

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Clinical notes contain contextualized information beyond structured data related to patients’ past and current health status. Objective: This study aimed to design a multimodal deep learning approach to improve the evaluation precision of hospital outcomes for heart failure (HF) using admission clinical notes and easily collected tabular data. Methods: Data for the development and validation of the multimodal model were retrospectively derived from 3 open-access US databases, including the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III v1.4 (MIMIC-III) and MIMIC-IV v1.0, collected from a teaching hospital from 2001 to 2019, and the eICU Collaborative Research Database v1.2, collected from 208 hospitals from 2014 to 2015. The study cohorts consisted of all patients with critical HF. The clinical notes, including chief complaint, history of present illness, physical examination, medical history, and admission medication, as well as clinical variables recorded in electronic health records, were analyzed. We developed a deep learning mortality prediction model for in-hospital patients, which underwent complete internal, prospective, and external evaluation. The Integrated Gradients and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) methods were used to analyze the importance of risk factors. Results: The study included 9989 (16.4%) patients in the development set, 2497 (14.1%) patients in the internal validation set, 1896 (18.3%) in the prospective validation set, and 7432 (15%) patients in the external validation set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models was 0.838 (95% CI 0.827-0.851), 0.849 (95% CI 0.841-0.856), and 0.767 (95% CI 0.762-0.772), for the internal, prospective, and external validation sets, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the multimodal model outperformed that of the unimodal models in all test sets, and tabular data contributed to higher discrimination. The medical history and physical examination were more useful than other factors in early assessments. Conclusions: The multimodal deep learning model for combining admission notes and clinical tabular data showed promising efficacy as a potentially novel method in evaluating the risk of mortality in patients with HF, providing more accurate and timely decision support.

Overview

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 · 10.2196/54363

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Workflow of the multimodal deep learning model with the fusion of textual and tabular data. (B) An overview of the inclusion criteria with all study cohorts. BERT: Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers; eICU-CRD: eICU Collaborative Research Database; HF: heart failure; ICD-10: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; ICU: intensive care unit; MIMIC: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care.
Figure 1 (A) Workflow of the multimodal deep learning model with the fusion of textual and tabular data. (B) An overview of the inclusion criteria with all study cohorts. BERT: Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers; eICU-CRD: eICU Collaborative Research Database; HF: heart failure; ICD-10: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; ICU: intensive care unit; MIMIC: Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The receiver operating characteristic curve comparison of the optimal multimodal deep learning model against different single modalities in the (A) internal validation set, (B) prospective validation set, and (C) external validation set. Values inside brackets are 95% CIs.
Figure 2 The receiver operating characteristic curve comparison of the optimal multimodal deep learning model against different single modalities in the (A) internal validation set, (B) prospective validation set, and (C) external validation set. Values inside brackets are 95% CIs.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The reduction of discrimination when separately combining the individual clinical note with tabular data in the (A) internal validation set, (B) prospective validation set, and (C) external validation set. AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Figure 3 The reduction of discrimination when separately combining the individual clinical note with tabular data in the (A) internal validation set, (B) prospective validation set, and (C) external validation set. AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Explanation of the developed deep learning model. (A) The top 20 tokens of clinical notes evaluated by the Integrated Gradient values in 3 types of language scenarios. (B) The top 20 clinical variables evaluated by the Shapley values. BUN: blood urea nitrogen; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index; GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale; ICU: intensive care unit; PTT: partial thromboplastin time; SBP: systolic blood pressure; SHAP: SHapley Additive exPlanations; SpO2: oxygen saturation.
Figure 4 Explanation of the developed deep learning model. (A) The top 20 tokens of clinical notes evaluated by the Integrated Gradient values in 3 types of language scenarios. (B) The top 20 clinical variables evaluated by the Shapley values. BUN: blood urea nitrogen; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index; GCS: Glasgow Coma Scale; ICU: intensive care unit; PTT: partial thromboplastin time; SBP: systolic blood pressure; SHAP: SHapley Additive exPlanations; SpO2: oxygen saturation.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv548 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.05.007 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s10741-019-09831-z · DOI
  4. 10.1093/cvr/cvac013 · DOI
  5. 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.25 · DOI
  6. 10.1161/circulationaha.112.001088 · DOI
  7. 10.1161/jaha.114.001708 · DOI
  8. 10.1097/ccm.0b013e318186aec8 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.08.005 · DOI
  10. 10.1002/ejhf.1628 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.06.013 · DOI
  12. 10.2196/46934 · DOI
  13. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000767 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.04.028 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.06.013 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jchf.2022.05.010 · DOI
  17. 10.2196/38082 · DOI
  18. 10.3390/bios13020282 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0141076816661316 · DOI
  20. 10.2196/26486 · DOI
  21. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34924 · DOI
  22. 10.5606/tftrd.2022.5287 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/3511616.3513115 · DOI
  24. 10.48550/arXiv.2102.04110 · DOI
  25. 10.1038/sdata.2016.35 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1038/sdata.2018.178 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.48550/arXiv.1904.05342 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.214 · DOI
  29. 10.5555/3305890.3306024 · DOI
  30. 10.1038/s41576-022-00532-2 · DOI
  31. Lyu, W, 2022, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2022, 719
  32. 10.1109/tetci.2021.3100641 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review

    Yang, M., Shi, N., Chen, H., Po, E. Y. P., Ng, P. Y., Lai, P. C. K., Wu, Y.-C., & Fong, D. Y. T. (2026) · Health Data Science · doi:10.34133/hds.0356 · Cited by 3

    “…80 ] (trained on PubMed and MIMIC-III database [ 81 ]), BioBERT [ 82 – 85 ] and BioMedBERT [ 37 ] (trained on PubMed database), ClinicalBERT [ 40 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 86 – 88 ] (trained on MIMIC-III database [ 81 ]), and SapBERT [ 87 ] (trained on the Unified Medical Language System database […”
    Influential

Metadata

Authors
Gao, Z., Liu, X., Kang, Y., Hu, P., Zhang, X., Yan, W., Yan, M., Yu, P., Zhang, Q., Xiao, W., & Zhang, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology Beijing (CN)
  • Chinese PLA General Hospital (CN)
  • Sichuan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Zhengbo
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2024-05-02
Volume
26
Pages
e54363
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392949850
Cited by
40
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 1
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62173032, 62171471)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
heart failure, in-hospital mortality prediction, multimodal deep learning, clinical notes, admission notes, tabular clinical data, electronic health records, MIMIC-III, MIMIC-IV, eICU-CRD, SHAP, integrated gradients, external validation, hospitalization outcomes, clinical decision support, early risk assessment, physical examination
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Heart Failure, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Hospital Mortality, Electronic Health Records

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