UCLA

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with no definitive diagnostic tests. HF registries are often based on manual reviews of medical records of hospitalized HF patients identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. However, most HF patients are not hospitalized, and manual review of big electronic health record (EHR) data is not practical. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has the largest integrated healthcare system in the nation, and an estimated 1.5 million patients have ICD codes for HF (HF ICD-code universe) in their VA EHR. The objective of our study was to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models to phenotype HF in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The model development cohort (n = 20 000: training, 16 000; validation 2000; testing, 2000) included 10 000 patients with HF and 10 000 without HF who were matched by age, sex, race, inpatient/outpatient status, hospital, and encounter date (within 60 days). HF status was ascertained by manual chart reviews in VAs External Peer Review Program for HF (EPRP-HF) and non-HF status was ascertained by the absence of ICD codes for HF in VA EHR. Two clinicians annotated 1000 random snippets with HF-related keywords and labelled 436 as HF, which was then used to train and test a natural language processing (NLP) model to classify HF (positive predictive value or PPV, 0.81; sensitivity, 0.77). A machine learning (ML) model using linear support vector machine architecture was trained and tested to classify HF using EPRP-HF as cases (PPV, 0.86; sensitivity, 0.86). From the HF ICD-code universe, we randomly selected 200 patients (gold standard cohort) and two clinicians manually adjudicated HF (gold standard HF) in 145 of those patients by chart reviews. We calculated NLP, ML, and NLP + ML scores and used weighted F scores to derive their optimal threshold values for HF classification, which resulted in PPVs of 0.83, 0.77, and 0.85 and sensitivities of 0.86, 0.88, and 0.83, respectively. HF patients classified by the NLP + ML model were characteristically and prognostically similar to those with gold standard HF. All three models performed better than ICD code approaches: one principal hospital discharge diagnosis code for HF (PPV, 0.97; sensitivity, 0.21) or two primary outpatient encounter diagnosis codes for HF (PPV, 0.88; sensitivity, 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that NLP and ML models are efficient AI tools to phenotype HF in big EHR data to create contemporary HF registries for clinical studies of effectiveness, quality improvement, and hypothesis generation.