Machine Learning Prediction of Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension and Heart Failure Using Longitudinal Clinical Data
Chen, H.; Ye, J.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo develop and validate machine learning models for predicting Blood Pressure (BP) control status using demographic characteristics and longitudinal BP history. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed deidentified data from a multi-site primary care quality improvement program for hypertension management. Participants included adults with diagnosed hypertension (N=23,002) or heart failure (N=1,137) who had at least 2 clinical visits. The primary outcome was BP control status, defined as systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg. Five machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, decision tree, Random Forest (RF), support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting) were compared using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Feature importance was assessed using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values. ResultsAmong 23,002 hypertensive patients (mean [SD] age, 65.25 [13.95] years; 13,015 [56.58%] female), the RF model achieved the highest performance with an AUROC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86-0.90) using BP history features alone and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89) with combined features. BP history substantially outperformed demographic factors (AUROC, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.58-0.62). Mean systolic BP, maximum systolic BP, and maximum diastolic BP were the most influential predictors. In the heart failure cohort (N=1,137; mean [SD] age, 75.15 [15.05] years; 579 [50.92%] female), the RF model achieved an AUROC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) with combined features. The model demonstrated accuracy of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.76-0.78), precision of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76-0.79), recall of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.75), and F1-score of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.77) for the hypertension cohort. ConclusionsMachine learning models incorporating longitudinal BP history effectively predicted hypertension control status, with BP variability metrics showing substantially greater predictive value than demographic characteristics. These findings suggest that systematic incorporation of historical BP patterns into clinical decision-support systems may enhance personalized hypertension management.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Racial disparities in continuous glucose monitoring-based 60-min glucose predictions among people with type 1 diabetes 93%
- Identification of predictive patient characteristics for assessing the probability of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality 92%
- Detecting QT prolongation From a Single-lead ECG With Deep Learning 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical interpretation of machine learning models for prediction of diabetic complications using electronic health records 92%
- Development and Application of Pharmacological Statin-Associated Muscle Symptoms Phenotyping Algorithms Using Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records Data 92%
- Evaluation of a Machine Learning Approach Utilizing Wearable Data for Prediction of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Learning Decision Thresholds for Risk-Stratification Models from Aggregate Clinician Behavior 92%
- Causal modeling of chronic kidney disease in a participatory framework for informing the inclusion of social drivers in health algorithms 92%
- Machine Learning Approaches for Electronic Health Records Phenotyping: A Methodical Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Can machine learning improve risk prediction of incident hypertension? An internal method comparison and external validation of the Framingham risk model using HUNT Study data 96%
- Machine learning for classifying chronic kidney disease and predicting creatinine levels using at-home measurements 93%
- Metabolomic profile for understanding heart failure classifications 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.