PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 24, 2010Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes174 citationsOpen Access

Identifying Important Risk Factors for Survival in Patient With Systolic Heart Failure Using Random Survival Forests

View Full Paper
EHEileen HsichEGEiran Z. GorodeskiEBEugene H. Blackstone

Key Result

A random survival forests model predicted all-cause mortality similarly to a conventional Cox proportional hazards model (C-index 0.705 vs 0.698) in patients with systolic heart failure.

Key Points

  • To evaluate random survival forests as an intuitive and robust machine learning method for variable selection and survival prediction in systolic heart failure.
  • Analyzed 2,231 adult patients with systolic heart failure who underwent cardiopulmonary stress testing, followed for a mean duration of 5 years.
  • Built a random survival forest using 2,000 bootstrap trees to evaluate 39 demographic, comorbidity, and exercise testing variables for predicting all-cause mortality.
  • A total of 742 patients died during follow-up, with peak oxygen consumption, serum urea nitrogen, and treadmill exercise time identified as the top three survival predictors.
  • The random survival forest achieved an out-of-bag C-index of 0.705, compared to 0.698 for the conventional Cox proportional hazards model.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=2,231)

Structured PICO

Does random survival forests modeling predict survival similarly to a conventional Cox proportional hazards model in adult patients with systolic heart failure?

P
Population
2231 adult patients with systolic heart failure who underwent cardiopulmonary stress testing
I
Intervention
Random survival forests (RSF) modeling
C
Comparator
Conventional Cox proportional hazards model
O
Outcome
All-cause mortalityhard clinical

Random survival forests perform as well as traditional Cox proportional hazard models for predicting survival in heart failure patients and may offer a more intuitive approach for identifying risk factors.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 0.705% vs 0.698%

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heart failure survival models typically are constructed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Regression modeling suffers from a number of limitations, including bias introduced by commonly used variable selection methods. We illustrate the value of an intuitive, robust approach to variable selection, random survival forests (RSF), in a large clinical cohort. RSF are a potentially powerful extensions of classification and regression trees, with lower variance and bias. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 2231 adult patients with systolic heart failure who underwent cardiopulmonary stress testing. During a mean follow-up of 5 years, 742 patients died. Thirty-nine demographic, cardiac and noncardiac comorbidity, and stress testing variables were analyzed as potential predictors of all-cause mortality. An RSF of 2000 trees was constructed, with each tree constructed on a bootstrap sample from the original cohort. The most predictive variables were defined as those near the tree trunks (averaged over the forest). The RSF identified peak oxygen consumption, serum urea nitrogen, and treadmill exercise time as the 3 most important predictors of survival. The RSF predicted survival similarly to a conventional Cox proportional hazards model (out-of-bag C-index of 0.705 for RSF versus 0.698 for Cox proportional hazards model). CONCLUSIONS: An RSF model in a cohort of patients with heart failure performed as well as a traditional Cox proportional hazard model and may serve as a more intuitive approach for clinicians to identify important risk factors for all-cause mortality.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hsich et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in systolic heart failure (n=2,231). Random survival forests (RSF) vs. Cox proportional hazards model was evaluated on Predictive accuracy for all-cause mortality (C-index). A random survival forests model predicted all-cause mortality similarly to a conventional Cox proportional hazards model (C-index 0.705 vs 0.698) in patients with systolic heart failure.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0dbbcd88250cfcc2a51f01https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.110.939371
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper