ArticleJournal of global health2025
Machine learning-based risk factor analysis and prediction model construction for mortality in chronic heart failure.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction models and risk scores in different types of heart failure: a review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the high global mortality burden of chronic heart failure (CHF) and the limitations of traditional risk prediction tools in accuracy and comprehensiveness, along with the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve prediction performance and the ability of a health ecology framework to systematically identify multi-dimensional risk factors, we aimed to develop an ML-based mortality risk prediction model for CHF and analyse its risk factors using a health ecology framework. Methods: We enrolled 489 CHF patients from the Jackson Heart Database, with all-cause mortality during a 10-year follow-up period designated as the outcome measure. Guided by a five-layer health ecology framework (individual traits, behavioural characteristics, interpersonal relationships, work/living conditions, and macro policies), we selected 58 variables for analysis. The cohort was split into 7:3 training/validation sets. Random forest (RF) and k-nearest neighbour (KNN) models identified mortality predictors after five oversampling techniques addressed data imbalance before modelling. We trained seven ML algorithms, validated them via 10-fold cross-validation, and compared them using accuracy, the area under the curve (AUC), and other metrics. Results: We identified 24 key factors: 19 for individual traits (age, body mass index (BMI), antihypertensive medication, hypoglycaemic medication, antiarrhythmic medication, systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular diastolic diameter, left ventricular mass, high-density lipoproteins, low-density lipoproteins, triglycerides, total cholesterol, cardiovascular surgical history, mitral annular early diastolic peak velocity of motion); three for individual behavioural characteristics (dark greens intake, egg intake, and night-time sleep duration); and two for living and working conditions (favourite food shop at three-kilometre radius, proportion of poor people in the place of residence). The model constructed using synthetic minority over-sampling technique combined with edited nearest neighbours (SMOTE-ENN) processing and applying extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model was optimal, with an accuracy of 81.58%, an AUC value of 0.83, a precision of 0.87, a recall of 0.84, and an F1 value of 0.86 for the prediction of mortality at 10-year follow up. Conclusions: We systematically categorised CHF mortality risk factors by integrating health ecology theory and ML. The SMOTE-ENN and XGBoost model demonstrated high accuracy, though further optimisation is needed to enhance clinical utility in CHF risk prediction.
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.