Paper detail

Risk factor identification for incident heart failure using neural network distillation and variable selection

Recent evidence shows that deep learning models trained on electronic health records from millions of patients can deliver substantially more accurate predictions of risk compared to their statistical counterparts. While this provides an important opportunity for improving clinical decision-making, the lack of interpretability is a major barrier to the incorporation of these black-box models in routine care, limiting their trustworthiness and preventing further hypothesis-testing investigations. In this study, we propose two methods, namely, model distillation and variable selection, to untangle hidden patterns learned by an established deep learning model (BEHRT) for risk association identification. Due to the clinical importance and diversity of heart failure as a phenotype, it was used to showcase the merits of the proposed methods. A cohort with 788,880 (8.3% incident heart failure) patients was considered for the study. Model distillation identified 598 and 379 diseases that were associated and dissociated with heart failure at the population level, respectively. While the associations were broadly consistent with prior knowledge, our method also highlighted several less appreciated links that are worth further investigation. In addition to these important population-level insights, we developed an approach to individual-level interpretation to take account of varying manifestation of heart failure in clinical practice. This was achieved through variable selection by detecting a minimal set of encounters that can maximally preserve the accuracy of prediction for individuals. Our proposed work provides a discovery-enabling tool to identify risk factors in both population and individual levels from a data-driven perspective. This helps to generate new hypotheses and guides further investigations on causal links.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.