ArticlePloS one2025
Predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and compare prediction models for 30-day and 1-year mortality in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) using EHR data, utilizing both traditional and machine learning (ML) techniques.
backgroundHFpEF represents 1 in 2 heart failure patients. Predictive models in HFpEF, specifically those derived from electronic health record (EHR) data, are less established.
methodsUsing MIMIC-IV EHR data from 2008-2019, patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of HFpEF were identified using ICD-9 and 10 codes. Demographics, vital signs, prior diagnoses, and lab data were extracted. Data was partitioned into 80% training, 20% test sets. Prediction models from seven model classes (Support Vector Classifier (SVC), Logistic Regression, Lasso Regression, Elastic Net, Random Forest, Histogram-based Gradient Boosting Classifier (HGBC), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)) were developed using various imputation and oversampling techniques with 5-fold cross-validation. Model performance was compared using several metrics, and individual feature importance assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis.
resultsAmong 3,235 hospitalizations for HFpEF, 30-day mortality was 6.3%, and 1- year mortality was 29.2%. Logistic regression performed well for 30-day mortality (Area Under the Receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.83), whereas Random Forest (AUC 0.79) and HGBC (AUC 0.78) for 1-year mortality. Age and NT-proBNP were the strongest predictors in SHAP analyses for both outcomes.
conclusionModels derived from EHR data can predict mortality after HFpEF hospitalization with comparable performance to models derived from registry or trial data, highlighting the potential for clinical implementation.
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.