"Mortality Prediction in Heart Failure using Explainable AI: Development and Validation of the EXACT-HF Model in a Nationwide Multi-Ethnic Asian Cohort"
Jauhari, S. M.; Yeung, W. L.; Li, T.; Chua, J.; Zhang, A. A.; Lim, E.-H.; Cherian, R.; Sim, D.; Lee Shao Guang, S.; Soon, D. K. N.; Chan, P. F.; Loh, S. Y.; Jaufeerally, F. R.; Chan, S.-P.; Chan, M. Y.-Y.; Lin, W.; Wong, R. C. C.
Show abstract
Background: Established heart-failure (HF) risk scores were developed largely in Western cohorts, assume linear predictor effects, and stop at prognosis without indicating action. We developed and externally validated machine-learning (ML) models for 30-day and 1-year mortality in a multi-ethnic Asian HF population, benchmarked against three established scores, and tested whether they localised correctable guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) gaps. Methods: We analysed 9,050 adults hospitalised with HF across eight Singapore hospitals (November 2016?March 2023). Gradient-boosted trees (XGBoost, primary) and elastic-net logistic regression were developed on three hospitals (n=4,034) and validated on five independent hospitals (n=5,016), without patient or site overlap. Comparators (MAGGIC, Singapore HF Score, OPTIMIZE-HF-Asia) were logistically recalibrated on development data. Results: On external validation XGBoost achieved AUROCs of 0.862 (95% CI 0.833?0.890) for 30-day and 0.749 (0.734?0.764) for 1-year mortality, versus 0.711?0.754 and 0.682?0.699 for the three recalibrated scores; logistic regression performed near-identically (0.864, 0.757) and was better calibrated at 1 year. Superiority held under temporal validation, multiple imputation and optimism correction, although the 30-day advantage was no longer distinguishable from MAGGIC once medications were removed. Among predicted-high-risk patients with reduced ejection fraction, mean GDMT exposure was 0.92 of four pillars versus 1.87 across all HFrEF patients, and 36.3% received none of the four versus 2.0% of low-risk patients. Ten variables reproduced full-model 30-day discrimination (AUROC 0.865). Conclusions: In external validation, interpretable models substantially outperformed established HF risk scores for short- and long-term mortality and simultaneously localised correctable therapeutic gaps, supporting a prediction-to-action tool deployable with ten bedside variables.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Validation of a parsimonious AI-Based Risk Score for Mortality in Heart Failure: A UK cohort study 96%
- Development and Multinational Validation of an Ensemble Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting and Predicting Structural Heart Disease Using Noisy Single-lead Electrocardiograms 94%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Artificial Intelligence Methods to Detect Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (AIM-HFpEF) within Electronic Health Records: An equitable disease prediction model 96%
- Clinical presentation, disease course and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease – a cohort study across sixteen countries 93%
- Right Ventricular Dysfunction: An Overlooked Predictor of Sudden Cardiac Death and Arrhythmic Events -- A Meta-Analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting 30-Day and 1-Year Mortality in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) 96%
- External validation of a claims-based model to predict left ventricular ejection fraction class in patients with heart failure 94%
- COVID-19 Infections and Outcomes in a Live Registry of Heart Failure Patients Across an Integrated Health Care System 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of Indicators of Reproducibility and Transparency in Published Cardiology Literature 91%
- Inequalities in access to and outcomes of cardiac surgery in England: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics (2010-2019) 90%
- Evaluation of antithrombotic use and COVID-19 outcomes in a nationwide atrial fibrillation cohort 90%
"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.