Key result
Machine learning-identified high-risk HF phenotype is linked to ~108% higher mortality versus intermediate-risk phenotype.
Why the study?
Identifying patient prognostic phenotypes facilitates precision medicine, motivating exploration of heart failure phenotypes corresponding to mortality risk and their identification using machine learning.
Does machine learning effectively identify prognostic phenotypes corresponding to mortality risk in patients with heart failure?
Observational (n=730)
Does machine learning effectively identify prognostic phenotypes corresponding to mortality risk in patients with heart failure?
Machine learning can effectively identify prognostic phenotypes in heart failure patients, with age and creatinine clearance rate being the top predictors of mortality risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ML-derived HF phenotypes may aid mortality risk stratification; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Identifying patient prognostic phenotypes facilitates precision medicine. This study aimed to explore phenotypes of patients with heart failure (HF) corresponding to prognostic condition (risk of mortality) and identify the phenotype of new patients by machine learning (ML). A unsupervised ML was applied to explore phenotypes of patients in a derivation dataset (n = 562) based on their medical records. Thereafter, supervised ML models were trained on the derivation dataset to classify these identified phenotypes. Then, the trained classifiers were further validated on an independent validation dataset (n = 168). Finally, Shapley additive explanations were used to interpret decision making of phenotype classification. Three patient phenotypes corresponding to stratified mortality risk (high, low, and intermediate) were identified. Kaplan−Meier survival curves among the three phenotypes had significant difference (pairwise comparison p < 0.05). Hazard ratio of all-cause mortality between patients in phenotype 1 (n = 91; high risk) and phenotype 3 (n = 329; intermediate risk) was 2.08 (95%CI 1.29−3.37, p = 0.003), and 0.26 (95%CI 0.11−0.61, p = 0.002) between phenotype 2 (n = 142; low risk) and phenotype 3. For phenotypes classification by random forest, AUCs of phenotypes 1, 2, and 3 were 0.736 ± 0.038, 0.815 ± 0.035, and 0.721 ± 0.03, respectively, slightly better than the decision tree. Then, the classifier effectively identified the phenotypes for new patients in the validation dataset with significant difference on survival curves and hazard ratios. Finally, age and creatinine clearance rate were identified as the top two most important predictors. ML could effectively identify patient prognostic phenotypes, facilitating reasonable management and treatment considering prognostic condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=730). Machine learning phenotype classification was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.29-3.37, p=0.003). Machine learning identified three heart failure phenotypes, with high-risk phenotype 1 showing greater all-cause mortality than intermediate-risk phenotype 3 (HR 2.08; 95% CI 1.29-3.37; P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: