4.6 Article

Artificial intelligence algorithm for predicting mortality of patients with acute heart failure

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219302

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2010-E63003-00, 2011-E63002-00, 2012-E63005-00, 2013-E63003-00, 2013-E63003-01, 2013-E63003-02, 2016-ER6303-00, 2016ER6303-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims This study aimed to develop and validate deep-learning-based artificial intelligence algorithm for predicting mortality of AHF (DAHF). Methods and results 12,654 dataset from 2165 patients with AHF in two hospitals were used as train data for DAHF development, and 4759 dataset from 4759 patients with AHF in 10 hospitals enrolled to the Korean AHF registry were used as performance test data. The endpoints were in-hospital, 12-month, and 36-month mortality. We compared the DAHF performance with the Get with the Guidelines Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) score, Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score, and other machine-learning models by using the test data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the DAHF were 0.880 (95% confidence interval, 0.876-0.884) for predicting in-hospital mortality; these results significantly outperformed those of the GWTG-HF (0.728 [0.720-0.737]) and other machine learning models. For predicting 12- and 36-month endpoints, DAHF (0.782 and 0.813) significantly outperformed MAGGIC score (0.718 and 0.729). During the 36-month follow-up, the high-risk group, defined by the DAHF, had a significantly higher mortality rate than the low-risk group(p<0.001). Conclusion DAHF predicted the in-hospital and long-term mortality of patients with AHF more accurately than the existing risk scores and other machine-learning models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available