ArticlePloS one2023
Investigating automated regression models for estimating left ventricular ejection fraction levels in heart failure patients using circadian ECG features.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circadian rhythms in cardiovascular disease.European heart journal · 2025Review
- AI analysis for ejection fraction estimation from 12-lead ECG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prediction of heart failure risk factors from retinal optical imaging via explainable machine learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Deep Learning-Based Detection of Arrhythmia Using ECG Signals - A Comprehensive Review.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart Failure (HF) significantly impacts approximately 26 million people worldwide, causing disruptions in the normal functioning of their hearts. The estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment selection, and monitoring of heart failure. However, achieving a definitive assessment is challenging, necessitating the use of echocardiography. Electrocardiogram (ECG) is a relatively simple, quick to obtain, provides continuous monitoring of patient's cardiac rhythm, and cost-effective procedure compared to echocardiography. In this study, we compare several regression models (support vector machine (SVM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBOOST), gaussian process regression (GPR) and decision tree) for the estimation of LVEF for three groups of HF patients at hourly intervals using 24-hour ECG recordings. Data from 303 HF patients with preserved, mid-range, or reduced LVEF were obtained from a multicentre cohort (American and Greek). ECG extracted features were used to train the different regression models in one-hour intervals. To enhance the best possible LVEF level estimations, hyperparameters tuning in nested loop approach was implemented (the outer loop divides the data into training and testing sets, while the inner loop further divides the training set into smaller sets for cross-validation). LVEF levels were best estimated using rational quadratic GPR and fine decision tree regression models with an average root mean square error (RMSE) of 3.83% and 3.42%, and correlation coefficients of 0.92 (p<0.01) and 0.91 (p<0.01), respectively. Furthermore, according to the experimental findings, the time periods of midnight-1 am, 8-9 am, and 10-11 pm demonstrated to be the lowest RMSE values between the actual and predicted LVEF levels. The findings could potentially lead to the development of an automated screening system for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by using the best measurement timings during their circadian cycles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.