Back

Your Heart Failure Prediction to Identify Un-diagnosed Patients from Routine Primary Care Records

Leyvraz, C.; Gabr, Z.; Sarlin, E.; Hadjikhani, N.; Jaun, A.

2025-10-03 primary care research
10.1101/2025.10.02.25337031 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and AimsHeart Failure is a common and serious condition that often remains undetected until a major cardio-vascular event leads to diagnosis is secondary care. Here we propose a portable artificial intelligence tool that integrates clinical guidelines with phenotypic markers to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from formal diagnosis evaluation and timely initiation of treatment. MethodsDiagnosis guidelines are first encoded using a rule-based model, which is then used to train a neural network. Relying on de-identified real-world evidence from UK primary care, transfer learning is used to train on 91,346 historical records and forecast the 6.2% patients who received a diagnosis within 3 years. Tested for portability in an independent sample consisting of 56,308 validation records, predictions are interpreted using Shapley values and individually assessed for statistical significance by comparison with matched digital twin cohorts. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis links positive predictions to the observed excess mortality. ResultsCompared with the prevailing challenge of under-diagnosis, model predictions in the validation set (0.7% TP, 2.7% FP) demonstrate strong statistical support, with fewer than 1.5% failing to reject a null hypothesis at p=0.05. Among the TP, the likelihood of receiving a future diagnosis is over 7.6 times higher than the baseline prevalence in the validation cohort. In both TP and FP cohorts, patients aged 60-70 years exhibited mortality rates more than fivefold higher than the control population. Furthermore, variables derived from the Complete Blood Count (CBC) including white blood cell count (WBC) and red cell distribution width (RDW), contribute significant predictive value beyond established diagnosis criteria. ConclusionsWhen implemented within a clinical decision support system, predictive AI has the potential to improve patients outcomes by leveraging routinely collected phenotypic markers, which are challenging for clinicians to interpret in the context of complex decision-making pathways.1

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
2
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
3
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
6
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
11
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
14
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
17
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.2%
19
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 53%
0.9%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
26
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
28
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
29
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
30
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%