Cited by 250Machine Learning in HealthcareBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Prediction of Incident Hypertension Within the Next Year: Prospective Study Using Statewide Electronic Health Records and Machine Learning

Open access
Ye, Chengyin, Fu, Tianyun, Hao, Shiying, Zhang, Yan, Wang, Oliver, Jin, Bo, Xia, Minjie, Liu, Modi +12 more·2018·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As a high-prevalence health condition, hypertension is clinically costly, difficult to manage, and often leads to severe and life-threatening diseases such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate prospectively a risk prediction model of incident essential hypertension within the following year. METHODS: Data from individual patient electronic health records (EHRs) were extracted from the Maine Health Information Exchange network. Retrospective (N=823,627, calendar year 2013) and prospective (N=680,810, calendar year 2014) cohorts were formed. A machine learning algorithm, XGBoost, was adopted in the process of feature selection and model building. It generated an ensemble of classification trees and assigned a final predictive risk score to each individual. RESULTS: The 1-year incident hypertension risk model attained areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.917 and 0.870 in the retrospective and prospective cohorts, respectively. Risk scores were calculated and stratified into five risk categories, with 4526 out of 381,544 patients (1.19%) in the lowest risk category (score 0-0.05) and 21,050 out of 41,329 patients (50.93%) in the highest risk category (score 0.4-1) receiving a diagnosis of incident hypertension in the following 1 year. Type 2 diabetes, lipid disorders, CVDs, mental illness, clinical utilization indicators, and socioeconomic determinants were recognized as driving or associated features of incident essential hypertension. The very high risk population mainly comprised elderly (age>50 years) individuals with multiple chronic conditions, especially those receiving medications for mental disorders. Disparities were also found in social determinants, including some community-level factors associated with higher risk and others that were protective against hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: With statewide EHR datasets, our study prospectively validated an accurate 1-year risk prediction model for incident essential hypertension. Our real-time predictive analytic model has been deployed in the state of Maine, providing implications in interventions for hypertension and related diseases and hopefully enhancing hypertension care.

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/jmir.9268

Cites

61 of 61 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: 1

  1. [53]Ramasubbu R Beaulieu S Taylor VH Schaffer A McIntyre RS Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Task Force The CANMAT task force recommendations for the management of patients with mood disorders and comorbid medical conditions: diagnostic, assessment, and treatment principles Ann Clin Psychiatry 2012 2 24 1 82 90 22303524 22303524

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ye, C., Fu, T., Hao, S., Zhang, Y., Wang, O., Jin, B., Xia, M., Liu, M., Zhou, X., Wu, Q., Guo, Y., Zhu, C., Li, Y.-M., Culver, D. S., Alfreds, S. T., Stearns, F., Sylvester, K. G., Widen, E., McElhinney, D., & Ling, X.
Affiliations
  • Hangzhou Normal University (CN)
  • Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (US)
  • First Hospital of Shijiazhuang (CN)
  • Pingjin Hospital (CN)
  • China Electric Power Research Institute (CN)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Ling, Xuefeng
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
e22
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2786814109
Cited by
250
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81402762)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
hypertension incidence, essential hypertension, risk prediction model, XGBoost, electronic health records, social determinants of health, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, socioeconomic disparities, community factors, prospective validation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, 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