Frailty prediction in heart failure patients with acute infections: the potential role of thiazide diuretics?
TinghuiHuang1
ShuyiLiu1
SiyuZhang2,3Email
XiSong1EmailEmail
MingXu2EmailEmail
HuilingWu1Email
JianjunZou3,4✉Email
YuyingShen1✉Email
1Department of General Practice, Nanjing First HospitalNanjing Medical University210000NanjingJiangsuChina
2School of Basic Medicine and Clinical PharmacyChina Pharmaceutical University211198NanjingJiangsuChina
3Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing First HospitalNanjing Medical University210006NanjingJiangsuChina
4Department of PharmacyNanjing First Hospital, China Pharmaceutical University210006NanjingJiangsuChina
Tinghui Huanga, 1, Shuyi Liua, 1, Siyu Zhangb, c, 1, Xi Songa, Ming Xub, Huiling Wua, Jianjun Zouc, d*, Yuying Shena*
aDepartment of General Practice, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210000, Jiangsu, China
bSchool of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, Jiangsu, China
cDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, Jiangsu, China
dDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing First Hospital, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 210006, Jiangsu, China
1These authors contributed equally to this work. Tinghui Huang, Shuyi Liu, and Siyu Zhang are the co-first authors.
*Corresponding E-mails: zoujianjun100@126.com (Jianjun Zou); yyshen0203@163.com (Yuying Shen)
E-mails: 13046232572@163.com (Tinghui Huang); 15707508134@163.com (Shuyi Liu);
18909636780@163.com (Siyu Zhang); songxi@njmu.edu.cn (Xi Song); mingxu@cpu.edu.cn (Ming Xu); wuhuiling08@126.com (Huiling Wu)
Abstract
Background
Frailty remains a significant risk factor for adverse health outcomes in hospitalized patients. Research on frailty-related risk factors in patients with comorbidities (concurrent acute and chronic conditions) remains limited. Few have evaluated frailty risk and its influencing factors in heart failure (HF) patients during acute infection episodes. Previous research in machine learning has predominantly overlooked the incorporation of visualization techniques while consistently demonstrating suboptimal model accuracy. This study aims to investigate the risk factors for frailty in HF patients with acute infections and to develop a machine learning-based prediction model for frailty.
Methods
A
This study enrolled 1498 patients hospitalized for HF with acute infections at Nanjing First Hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2023. The study population was randomly divided into training and testing sets at a 7:3 ratio. Potential predictors were screened through univariate analysis and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Eight machine learning algorithms were evaluated to determine the optimal predictive model. Model interpretability was enhanced using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method.
Results
Frailty was prevalent in 80.3% of the cohort. Key predictors included thiazide diuretics use, serum albumin, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), lymphocyte percentage, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), capacity for action, age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, history of cerebral infarction, and smoking. Comparative analysis of the eight models revealed that eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) achieved superior performance, with the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC: 0.872) and precision-recall curve (AUPRC: 0.969). The model’s robustness was further validated by calibration curves and decision curve analysis. SHAP analysis revealed that thiazide diuretics use is inversely associated with frailty risk.
Conclusions
The prediction model developed in this study incorporates 11 readily accessible predictors. A key innovation of this study lies in its pioneering inclusion of thiazide diuretics within the frailty prediction system. We successfully developed and deployed a clinically accessible online calculator based on the optimal XGBoost model. The web-based calculator offers a user-friendly clinical application, allowing real-time risk evaluation to guide timely therapeutic decisions.
A
Clinical trial number
not applicable.
Keywords
heart failure
acute infections
thiazide diuretics
machine learning
frailty
prediction model
A
Introduction
Frailty, a multidimensional geriatric syndrome closely associated with aging, manifests as an excessive decline in reserve and function across multiple physiological systems, leading to diminished responsiveness to minor stressors. It is highly prevalent among hospitalized patients and significantly increases the risk of adverse health outcomes, including hospitalization, falls, disability, and mortality [1]. It is noteworthy that heart failure (HF), similar to frailty, represents a complex clinical syndrome with a persistently increasing hospitalization prevalence, which has become a significant global public health concern [2, 3]. Additionally, clinical observations indicate that hospitalized HF patients frequently present with concurrent acute infections. This comorbid condition may lead to prolonged hospital stays, increased short-term readmission rates, and elevated post-discharge mortality [4].
Previous research primarily focuses on univariate analyses of the relationship between risk factors and frailty in populations with chronic diseases [5]. A cohort study involving 936 sepsis patients only demonstrated the association between frailty and mortality risk in individuals with a single acute illness [6]. Furthermore, existing studies have largely concentrated on assessing hospitalization and mortality risks in chronic HF patients [7]. However, research on frailty-related risk factors in patients with comorbidities (concurrent acute and chronic conditions) remains limited. In clinical settings, HF—a prevalent chronic condition—is primarily characterized by significant fluid retention. In contrast, infections, as representative acute cases, typically manifest with distinct fluid exudation as their pathological hallmark. These overlapping pathological mechanisms may collectively result in excessive fluid overload, clinically manifested as bilateral lower extremity edema and secondary decline in muscle strength, thereby significantly increasing the risk of prolonged bed rest. Thus, HF patients during acute infection episodes exhibit elevated rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including prolonged hospitalization, worsening or secondary infections, deep vein thrombosis, increased need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and even in-hospital mortality. These complications not only negatively impact disease prognosis but also pose significant challenges to clinical management. To summarize, HF and acute infections frequently coexist as comorbidities in hospitalized patients, with such comorbid cases typically presenting severe symptoms and poor clinical outcomes. In this context, frailty may influence disease progression through two distinct pathways: exacerbating symptom severity and precipitating earlier onset of adverse outcomes [8, 9].
Similarly, current research on HF prediction models primarily focuses on forecasting patient mortality and readmission risk [10]. Moreover, most existing machine learning studies tend to overlook the application of visualization techniques, while the predictive accuracy of conventional models remains suboptimal. These limitations substantially constrain clinicians’ ability to comprehend disease progression and make precise prognostic assessments intuitively. Notably, compared to traditional statistical methods and standard machine learning techniques, machine learning visualization tools and technologies are more adept at handling complex interactions or nonlinear relationships among variables. They can efficiently process vast amounts of clinical data, offering distinct advantages in disease prediction, multivariate analysis, and personalized treatment—effectively serving as an additional reliable “virtual clinician” for patients. This not only enhances clinicians’ confidence but also ensures more comprehensive and professional disease management for patients [11, 12]. For instance, in tumor imaging analysis, machine learning visualization techniques can precisely identify malignant lesion areas, with interpretability that aligns with pathological findings, thereby significantly improving clinical trust [13].
To solve these disadvantages, this study aims to investigate frailty-associated risk factors in patients with concurrent HF and acute infections, and to develop a frailty prediction model utilizing multiple machine learning algorithms. Additionally, a clinically accessible online calculator will be developed and deployed to accurately identify high-risk individuals and tailor appropriate interventions based on individual risk factors. Ultimately, this approach seeks to reduce the incidence of frailty or even reverse its progression in affected patients.
Methods
Design and participants
This study will collect clinical data from patients with HF complicated by acute infections at Nanjing First Hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2023, employing various machine learning algorithms to predict frailty in this patient population. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥ 65 years; (2) diagnosed with HF according to the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure 2024 [14]; (3) evidence of acute infections, including fever, tachycardia, elevated inflammatory markers, or imaging findings suggestive of infection. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) incomplete medical records; (2) uninfected patients; (3) comorbidities such as acute myocardial infarction, advanced malignancy, psychiatric disorders, or severe trauma; (4) New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I.
A
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing First Hospital (Approval No. KY20250120-KS-03).
A
As this was a retrospective study, the Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent. This study was conducted by the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Frailty status assessment
All patients were assessed for frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), with scores ranging from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill).
A
According to the CFS scoring criteria, a score ≤ 4 indicates a non-frail state, while a score ≥ 5 is classified as frail. The CFS was conducted by nurses during the patient’s hospitalization, with the results systematically documented in the electronic medical record system. The CFS includes the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale (eating, bathing, grooming (toothbrushing, face washing, shaving, hair combing), dressing (fastening shoes, buttoning clothes), bowel control, bladder control and toilet use, transfers (bed-to-chair mobility), ambulation (walking 45 meters on level ground), stair climbing) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale (telephone usage, shopping, meal preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, medication management, financial handling).
Clinical data collection
All clinical data were extracted from the electronic medical record system, including: (1) demographic characteristics: age, sex, literacy, marital status, Body Mass Index (BMI), hospital days, capacity for action, smoking, drinking, and NYHA functional class; (2) medication use: angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) / angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, beta receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), calcium channel blocker (CCB), loop diuretics, thiazide diuretics, nitrates, statins, antiplatelet drugs, anticoagulants, cardiac glycosides, soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators; (3) comorbidities: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, fatty liver disease, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic cor pulmonale, renal insufficiency, osteoporosis, cerebral infarction, malignant tumor; (4) infection characteristics: pulmonary infection, urinary tract infection, abdominal infection, skin and soft tissue infection, bloodstream infection, sepsis, septic shock; (5) admission vital signs: first recorded blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure) and heart rate; (6) biomarkers: white blood cell, lymphocyte percentage, neutrophil percentage, red blood cell, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), platelet, D-dimer, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, serum albumin, total bilirubin, urea, creatinine, uric acid, serum potassium, serum sodium, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), interleukin-6, procalcitonin, c-reactive protein, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), elevated natriuretic peptide levels were defined as BNP>100pg/mL or NT-proBNP>300pg/mL [15]; (7) echocardiography: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aortic diameter (AOD), left atrial diameter (LAD), interventricular septum diameter (IVSD), left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular posterior wall diameter (LVPWD), left ventricular end systolic diameter (LVESD).
Data analysis
In this study, the k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm was used to impute missing values for candidate variables with < 20% missingness [16]. The normality of continuous variables was assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test: normally distributed variables were presented as mean ± SD, and group comparisons were made using independent samples t-tests; non-normally distributed variables were summarized as median (interquartile range) [M (IQR)], and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons. Categorical variables were described as frequencies (percentages) [n (%)], and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was selected for analysis of differences between groups according to sample size characteristics. All statistical tests were two-tailed, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed with R (version 4.3.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Model development
The dataset was randomly split into training and testing sets in a 7:3 ratio. The training set was used for variable selection and model development, while the testing set evaluated model performance. Continuous variables were standardized using Z-scores, and categorical variables were encoded via one-hot encoding [17, 18]. Variables significantly associated with frailty (p < 0.05) in univariate analysis were retained for further analysis. Significant variables were further analyzed using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. By tuning the hyperparameter lambda (λ), LASSO performs feature selection through L1 regularization, shrinking the coefficients of weakly correlated variables to zero [19]. Variables with non-zero coefficients were selected from LASSO regression. To assess multicollinearity, variables with a variance inflation factor (VIF) ≥ 5 were excluded to ensure feature independence [20].
During model optimization, hyperparameters were tuned via grid search with 10-fold cross-validation. The grid search exhaustively evaluated all possible hyperparameter combinations within predefined ranges to identify the optimal configuration.
A
The final model was evaluated through: (1) performance metrics on the testing set, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score; (2) calibration curves to evaluate the agreement between predicted and observed probabilities, complemented by Brier scores quantifying overall calibration error; (3) decision curve analysis (DCA) to quantify net clinical benefit, including standardized net benefit rates and optimal risk thresholds. To interpret the model, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were applied to quantify feature contributions [21]. For clinical translation, an interactive web application was developed to visualize predictions.
Result
Sample characteristics
This study initially screened 11762 hospitalized patients, excluding 10264 cases that met the exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 1498 patients were included in the analysis, with 1203 (80.3%) diagnosed with frailty. The median age was 77 years, with 59.8% males and 40.2% females. The mean hospital stay was 10.5 days. Baseline characteristics of the training set are presented in Table 1. There were no significant differences in variables between the training and testing sets (Supplementary Table S1). Schematic of the study workflow was detailed in Fig. 1.
Table 1
Demographics and potential risk factors of patients in the training set.
Variables
Overall (n = 1048)
No Frailty(n = 214)
Frailty (n = 834)
p
Sex, n (%)
   
0.004
Female
425 (40.6)
68 (31.8)
357 (42.8)
 
Male
623 (59.4)
146 (68.2)
477 (57.2)
 
Marital Status, n (%)
   
< 0.001
Unmarried
3 (0.3)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.4)
 
Divorced And Widowed
79 (7.5)
2 (0.9)
77 (9.2)
 
Married
966 (92.2)
212 (99.1)
754 (90.4)
 
Literacy, n (%)
   
0.126
Illiteracy
172 (16.4)
24 (11.2)
148 (17.7)
 
Primary School
329 (31.4)
69 (32.2)
260 (31.2)
 
Junior High School
284 (27.1)
67 (31.3)
217 (26.0)
 
Senior High School
166 (15.8)
31 (14.5)
135 (16.2)
 
College Degree Or Above
97 (9.3)
23 (10.7)
74 (8.9)
 
Capacity For Action, n (%)
   
< 0.001
Bedridden
323 (30.8)
2 (0.9)
321 (38.5)
 
Wheelchair-Dependent
88 (8.4)
0 (0.0)
88 (10.6)
 
Ambulatory
637 (60.8)
212 (99.1)
425 (51.0)
 
Smoking, n (%)
   
0.008
No
727 (69.4)
165 (77.1)
562 (67.4)
 
Yes
321 (30.6)
49 (22.9)
272 (32.6)
 
Drinking, n (%)
   
0.022
No
979 (93.4)
192 (89.7)
787 (94.4)
 
Yes
69 (6.6)
22 (10.3)
47 (5.6)
 
NYHA Functional Class, n (%)
   
< 0.001
412 (39.3)
113 (52.8)
299 (35.9)
 
446 (42.6)
86 (40.2)
360 (43.2)
 
190 (18.1)
15 (7.0)
175 (21.0)
 
Medicine, n (%)
   
0.266
<5
423 (40.4)
94 (43.9)
329 (39.4)
 
≥ 5
625 (59.6)
120 (56.1)
505 (60.6)
 
ARNI, n (%)
   
0.218
No
817 (78.0)
174 (81.3)
643 (77.1)
 
Yes
231 (22.0)
40 (18.7)
191 (22.9)
 
SGLT-2 Inhibitors, n (%)
   
0.402
No
838 (80.0)
176 (82.2)
662 (79.4)
 
Yes
210 (20.0)
38 (17.8)
172 (20.6)
 
Beta Receptor Blockers, n (%)
   
0.291
No
657 (62.7)
127 (59.3)
530 (63.5)
 
Yes
391 (37.3)
87 (40.7)
304 (36.5)
 
MRA, n (%)
   
0.008
No
577 (55.1)
100 (46.7)
477 (57.2)
 
Yes
471 (44.9)
114 (53.3)
357 (42.8)
 
ACEI/ARB, n (%)
   
0.475
No
923 (88.1)
192 (89.7)
731 (87.6)
 
Yes
125 (11.9)
22 (10.3)
103 (12.4)
 
CCB, n (%)
   
0.032
No
759 (72.4)
168 (78.5)
591 (70.9)
 
Yes
289 (27.6)
46 (21.5)
243 (29.1)
 
Loop Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.702
No
632 (60.3)
132 (61.7)
500 (60.0)
 
Yes
416 (39.7)
82 (38.3)
334 (40.0)
 
Thiazide Diuretics, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
973 (92.8)
178 (83.2)
795 (95.3)
 
Yes
75 (7.2)
36 (16.8)
39 (4.7)
 
Nitrates, n (%)
   
0.232
No
939 (89.6)
197 (92.1)
742 (89.0)
 
Yes
109 (10.4)
17 (7.9)
92 (11.0)
 
Statins, n (%)
   
0.176
No
542 (51.7)
120 (56.1)
422 (50.6)
 
Yes
506 (48.3)
94 (43.9)
412 (49.4)
 
Antiplatelet Drugs, n (%)
   
0.116
No
591 (56.4)
110 (51.4)
481 (57.7)
 
Yes
457 (43.6)
104 (48.6)
353 (42.3)
 
Anticoagulants, n (%)
   
0.106
No
740 (70.6)
141 (65.9)
599 (71.8)
 
Yes
308 (29.4)
73 (34.1)
235 (28.2)
 
Cardiac Glycosides, n (%)
   
0.019
No
979 (93.4)
208 (97.2)
771 (92.4)
 
Yes
69 (6.6)
6 (2.8)
63 (7.6)
 
sGC Stimulators, n (%)
   
0.669
No
1038 (99.0)
213 (99.5)
825 (98.9)
 
Yes
10 (1.0)
1 (0.5)
9 (1.1)
 
Hypertension, n (%)
   
0.833
No
327 (31.2)
65 (30.4)
262 (31.4)
 
Yes
721 (68.8)
149 (69.6)
572 (68.6)
 
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)
   
0.101
No
662 (63.2)
146 (68.2)
516 (61.9)
 
Yes
386 (36.8)
68 (31.8)
318 (38.1)
 
Hyperlipidemia, n (%)
   
0.914
No
1005 (95.9)
206 (96.3)
799 (95.8)
 
Yes
43 (4.1)
8 (3.7)
35 (4.2)
 
Coronary Heart Disease, n (%)
   
0.692
No
495 (47.2)
98 (45.8)
397 (47.6)
 
Yes
553 (52.8)
116 (54.2)
437 (52.4)
 
Atrial Fibrillation, n (%)
   
0.084
No
751 (71.7)
164 (76.6)
587 (70.4)
 
Yes
297 (28.3)
50 (23.4)
247 (29.6)
 
Fatty Liver Disease, n (%)
   
0.002
No
1022 (97.5)
202 (94.4)
820 (98.3)
 
Yes
26 (2.5)
12 (5.6)
14 (1.7)
 
Cirrhosis, n (%)
   
0.78
No
1042 (99.4)
212 (99.1)
830 (99.5)
 
Yes
6 (0.6)
2 (0.9)
4 (0.5)
 
COPD, n (%)
   
0.499
No
929 (88.6)
193 (90.2)
736 (88.2)
 
Yes
119 (11.4)
21 (9.8)
98 (11.8)
 
Chronic Cor Pulmonale, n (%)
   
0.095
No
1025 (97.8)
213 (99.5)
812 (97.4)
 
Yes
23 (2.2)
1 (0.5)
22 (2.6)
 
Renal Insufficiency, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
776 (74.0)
190 (88.8)
586 (70.3)
 
Yes
272 (26.0)
24 (11.2)
248 (29.7)
 
Osteoporosis, n (%)
   
0.494
No
1036 (98.9)
213 (99.5)
823 (98.7)
 
Yes
12 (1.1)
1 (0.5)
11 (1.3)
 
Cerebral Infarction, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
791 (75.5)
188 (87.9)
603 (72.3)
 
Yes
257 (24.5)
26 (12.1)
231 (27.7)
 
Malignant Tumor, n (%)
   
0.901
No
970 (92.6)
199 (93.0)
771 (92.4)
 
Yes
78 (7.4)
15 (7.0)
63 (7.6)
 
Pulmonary Infection, n (%)
   
0.88
No
59(5.6)
13(6.1)
46(5.5)
 
Yes
989 (94.4)
201 (93.9)
788 (94.5)
 
Urinary Tract Infection, n (%)
   
0.117
No
994 (94.8)
208 (97.2)
786 (94.2)
 
Yes
54 (5.2)
6 (2.8)
48 (5.8)
 
Abdominal Infection, n (%)
   
0.844
No
1019 (97.2)
209 (97.7)
810 (97.1)
 
Yes
29 (2.8)
5 (2.3)
24 (2.9)
 
Skin And Soft Tissue Infection, n (%)
   
0.199
No
1030 (98.3)
213 (99.5)
817 (98.0)
 
Yes
18 (1.7)
1 (0.5)
17 (2.0)
 
Bloodstream Infection, n (%)
   
0.428
No
1028 (98.1)
208 (97.2)
820 (98.3)
 
Yes
20 (1.9)
6 (2.8)
14 (1.7)
 
Sepsis, n (%)
   
0.063
No
1015 (96.9)
212 (99.1)
803 (96.3)
 
Yes
33 (3.1)
2 (0.9)
31 (3.7)
 
Septic Shock, n (%)
   
1
No
1033 (98.6)
211 (98.6)
822 (98.6)
 
Yes
15 (1.4)
3 (1.4)
12 (1.4)
 
BNP, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
261 (24.9)
86 (40.2)
175 (21.0)
 
Yes
787 (75.1)
128 (59.8)
659 (79.0)
 
Systolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
130.00 [120.00, 141.75]
130.00 [118.00, 143.75]
0.946
Diastolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
76.00 [70.00, 81.00]
76.00 [68.00, 83.75]
0.83
Heart Rate, bpm
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
80.00 [70.00, 88.75]
81.50 [73.00, 95.00]
0.001
White Blood Cell, 109/L
6.86 [5.27, 9.20]
6.20 [5.01, 8.32]
7.08 [5.32, 9.42]
0.002
Lymphocyte Percentage, %
16.10 [9.50, 23.30]
21.95 [15.00, 29.48]
14.55 [8.62, 21.98]
< 0.001
Neutrophil Percentage, %
74.60 [65.18, 83.30]
68.30 [59.12, 76.65]
76.40 [66.95, 84.70]
< 0.001
Red Blood Cell, 109/L
4.01 [3.52, 4.47]
4.28 [3.88, 4.57]
3.92 [3.45, 4.41]
< 0.001
Hemoglobin, g/L
121.00 [105.00, 135.00]
130.00 [118.00, 140.75]
119.00 [102.00, 133.00]
< 0.001
MCHC, g/L
326.00 [320.00, 333.00]
330.00 [324.00, 334.75]
326.00 [318.00, 332.00]
< 0.001
Platelet, 109/L
174.00 [129.00, 228.00]
173.00 [134.00, 224.50]
174.00 [128.00, 228.00]
0.704
D-Dimer, ug/mL
0.88 [0.42, 2.11]
0.46 [0.26, 0.91]
1.08 [0.53, 2.43]
< 0.001
Alanine Aminotransferase, u/L
17.05 [12.00, 27.08]
18.25 [13.00, 26.00]
17.00 [11.00, 27.73]
0.056
Aspartate Aminotransferase, u/L
22.00 [17.00, 32.00]
20.00 [17.00, 28.00]
23.00 [17.00, 33.00]
0.067
Serum Albumin, g/L
35.35 [31.50, 38.50]
38.20 [35.00, 39.90]
34.60 [30.89, 37.90]
< 0.001
Total Bilirubin, umol/L
11.16 [7.60, 16.00]
11.55 [8.03, 16.04]
11.00 [7.43, 16.00]
0.355
Urea, mmol/L, mmol/L
7.35 [5.48, 10.73]
6.10 [5.07, 7.90]
7.74 [5.67, 11.48]
< 0.001
Creatinine, umol/L
84.45 [66.38, 120.43]
73.90 [62.74, 90.30]
89.05 [67.81, 128.90]
< 0.001
Uric Acid, umol/L
330.00 [246.65, 432.50]
316.36 [240.75, 394.65]
338.50 [247.50, 446.45]
0.035
Serum Potassium, mmol/L
3.84 [3.55, 4.19]
3.79 [3.52, 4.08]
3.86 [3.55, 4.22]
0.038
Serum Sodium, mmol/L
139.50 [136.90, 141.80]
139.55 [137.80, 141.50]
139.50 [136.70, 141.90]
0.469
Total Cholesterol, mmol/L
3.56 [2.94, 4.32]
3.86 [3.22, 4.48]
3.49 [2.87, 4.28]
< 0.001
Triglycerides, mmol/L
1.02 [0.78, 1.42]
1.10 [0.84, 1.49]
1.01 [0.77, 1.41]
0.016
High-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
0.93 [0.76, 1.12]
0.97 [0.82, 1.13]
0.92 [0.74, 1.12]
0.014
Low-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
1.94 [1.45, 2.54]
2.21 [1.68, 2.64]
1.88 [1.42, 2.52]
< 0.001
eGFR, ml/min
68.32 [43.56, 85.26]
84.97 [66.05, 91.14]
62.96 [40.16, 82.04]
< 0.001
Interleukin-6, pg/mL
15.02 [5.03, 50.56]
12.42 [3.50, 56.88]
16.50 [5.69, 46.87]
0.08
Procalcitonin, pg/mL
0.10 [0.05, 0.35]
0.08 [0.04, 0.19]
0.11 [0.05, 0.42]
0.001
C-Reactive Protein, mg/L
17.81 [4.86, 59.95]
7.69 [2.52, 40.55]
20.19 [6.19, 63.43]
< 0.001
LVEF, mm
61.00 [49.75, 64.00]
63.00 [58.25, 65.00]
61.00 [48.00, 63.00]
< 0.001
AOD, mm
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
34.00 [31.00, 37.00]
33.00 [31.00, 36.00]
0.494
LAD, mm
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
44.00 [38.25, 49.00]
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
0.455
IVSD, mm
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [10.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
0.2
LVEDD, mm
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
50.00 [47.00, 55.00]
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
0.365
LVPWD, mm
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
10.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
0.175
LVESD, mm
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 37.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.38]
0.464
Age, year
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
72.00 [68.00, 75.75]
79.00 [74.00, 85.00]
< 0.001
Hospital Days, day
11.00 [8.00, 16.00]
11.00 [7.00, 18.00]
10.00 [8.00, 15.00]
0.209
BMI, kg/m2
23.44 [21.08, 25.78]
24.03 [21.99, 25.91]
23.23 [20.81, 25.75]
0.006
Data are presented as n (%), or median (IQR). Abbreviations: NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; ARNI, Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor; SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Protein-2 Inhibitors; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; ACEI, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor; ARB, Angiotensin Receptor Blocker; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; sGC Stimulators, Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators; COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction; AOD, Aortic Diameter; LAD, Left Atrial Diameter; IVSD, Interventricular Septum Diameter; LVEDD, Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter; LVPWD, Left Ventricular Posterior Wall Diameter; LVESD, Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter; BMI, Body Mass Index.
Fig. 1
Schematic of the study workflow. Abbreviations: AUROC, Area Under The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve; AUPRC, Area Under Precision-Recall Curve; DCA, Decision Curve Analysis.
Click here to Correct
Variables selection
This study included 81 clinically relevant variables, six of which contained missing values (Supplementary Table S2). Missing values were imputed using the KNN algorithm. Univariate analysis identified 37 variables significantly associated with frailty (p < 0.05; Table 1). LASSO regression with 10-fold cross-validation was applied, and using the “1-standard error” rule (1-SE criterion), we selected the λ value corresponding to one standard deviation from the minimum cross-validated error (λ = 0.02382322; Supplementary Table S3). This process retained 11 independent predictors with non-zero coefficients: thiazide diuretics use, serum albumin, eGFR, lymphocyte percentage, MCHC, capacity for action, age, LVEF, NYHA functional class, history of cerebral infarction, and smoking.
There was no substantial multicollinearity between the variables, with all VIF values < 1.5 (Supplementary Table S3). Using the above 11 variables, we developed eight ML models: logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), light gradient boosting machines (LightGBM), support vector machine (SVM), categorical boosting (CatBoost), naive bayes (NB), and multilayer perceptron (MLP). The hyperparameters of each model were optimized by grid search, and the specific parameters are
A
shown in Supplementary Table S4.
Model performance
The predictive performance of eight machine learning models was evaluated on the testing set. The XGBoost model demonstrated superior overall performance, achieving an AUROC of 0.872 (95% CI: 0.835–0.909) and AUPRC of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.945–0.983) (Fig. 2).
A
The model also showed excellent calibration, with the lowest Brier score (0.106), indicating close agreement between predicted probabilities and observed outcomes (Fig. 3). DCA revealed that XGBoost provided consistently higher standardized net benefit than other models across the clinically relevant threshold probability range of 60–90% (Fig. 4). At the optimal threshold determined by the Youden index, XGBoost maintained strong performance metrics: accuracy (0.787), sensitivity (0.783), specificity (0.802), precision (0.948), recall (0.783), and F1-score (0.858) (Table 2). The training set performance metrics are shown in Supplementary Table S5. Based on these comprehensive evaluations, XGBoost was selected as the final prediction model.
Fig. 2
AUROC and AUPRC curves of the eight machine learning models. (A) AUROC curves of the training set (B) AUROC curves of the testing set (C) AUPRC curves of the training set (D) AUPRC curves of the testing set. Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron; AUROC, Area Under The Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve; AUPRC, Area Under Precision-Recall Curve.
Click here to Correct
Fig. 3
Calibration curves (reliability curves) of eight machine learning models on the testing set. The x - axis represents the mean predicted probability, and the y - axis represents the actual proportion of positive samples. The dashed line represents perfect calibration (where the predicted probability exactly matches the actual proportion). The values in the brackets are the Brier scores of each model, which are used to evaluate the reliability of the model's probability prediction. Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Click here to Correct
Fig. 4
Decision curve analysis of eight machine learning models on testing set. The x - axis represents the threshold probability, and the y - axis denotes the net benefit. Curves for different models illustrate their net benefit across varying threshold probabilities. The “None” curve (dashed line) assumes no intervention, and the “All” curve (dotted line) assumes all cases are positive. Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Click here to Correct
Table 2
The performance metrics of the eight machine learning models on the testing set.
Model
Sensitivity
Specifity
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1-Value
LR
0.824
0.691
0.8
0.924
0.824
0.871
RF
0.775
0.753
0.771
0.935
0.775
0.847
XGBoost
0.783
0.802
0.787
0.948
0.783
0.858
LightGBM
0.734
0.852
0.756
0.958
0.734
0.831
SVM
0.762
0.778
0.764
0.94
0.762
0.841
CatBoost
0.764
0.79
0.769
0.943
0.764
0.844
NB
0.745
0.778
0.751
0.939
0.745
0.831
MLP
0.767
0.716
0.758
0.925
0.767
0.839
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Supplementary Table S1. Demographics and potential risk factors in the testing and training set.
Variables
Overall (n = 1498)
Testing set (n = 450)
Training set (n = 1048)
p
Sex, n (%)
   
0.701
Female
602 (40.2)
177 (39.3)
425 (40.6)
 
Male
896 (59.8)
273 (60.7)
623 (59.4)
 
Marital Status, n (%)
   
0.854
Unmarried
5 (0.3)
2 (0.4)
3 (0.3)
 
Divorced And Widowed
111 (7.4)
32 (7.1)
79 (7.5)
 
Married
1382 (92.3)
416 (92.4)
966 (92.2)
 
Literacy, n (%)
   
0.676
Illiteracy
247 (16.5)
75 (16.7)
172 (16.4)
 
Primary School
454 (30.3)
125 (27.8)
329 (31.4)
 
Junior High School
413 (27.6)
129 (28.7)
284 (27.1)
 
Senior High School
239 (16.0)
73 (16.2)
166 (15.8)
 
College Degree Or Above
145 (9.7)
48 (10.7)
97 (9.3)
 
Capacity For Action, n (%)
   
0.787
Bedridden
469 (31.3)
146 (32.4)
323 (30.8)
 
Wheelchair-Dependent
127 (8.5)
39 (8.7)
88 (8.4)
 
Ambulatory
902 (60.2)
265 (58.9)
637 (60.8)
 
Smoking, n (%)
   
0.01
No
1008 (67.3)
281 (62.4)
727 (69.4)
 
Yes
490 (32.7)
169 (37.6)
321 (30.6)
 
Drinking, n (%)
   
0.066
No
1411 (94.2)
432 (96.0)
979 (93.4)
 
Yes
87 (5.8)
18 (4.0)
69 (6.6)
 
NYHA Functional Class, n (%)
   
0.119
568 (37.9)
156 (34.7)
412 (39.3)
 
663 (44.3)
217 (48.2)
446 (42.6)
 
267 (17.8)
77 (17.1)
190 (18.1)
 
Medicine, n (%)
   
0.753
No
600 (40.1)
177 (39.3)
423 (40.4)
 
Yes
898 (59.9)
273 (60.7)
625 (59.6)
 
ARNI, n (%)
   
1
No
1168 (78.0)
351 (78.0)
817 (78.0)
 
Yes
330 (22.0)
99 (22.0)
231 (22.0)
 
ACEI/ARB, n (%)
   
1
No
1320 (88.1)
397 (88.2)
923 (88.1)
 
Yes
178 (11.9)
53 (11.8)
125 (11.9)
 
SGLT-2 Inhibitors, n (%)
   
0.146
No
1213 (81.0)
375 (83.3)
838 (80.0)
 
Yes
285 (19.0)
75 (16.7)
210 (20.0)
 
Beta Receptor Blockers, n (%)
   
0.243
No
924 (61.7)
267 (59.3)
657 (62.7)
 
Yes
574 (38.3)
183 (40.7)
391 (37.3)
 
MRA, n (%)
   
0.632
No
818 (54.6)
241 (53.6)
577 (55.1)
 
Yes
680 (45.4)
209 (46.4)
471 (44.9)
 
CCB, n (%)
   
0.372
No
1074 (71.7)
315 (70.0)
759 (72.4)
 
Yes
424 (28.3)
135 (30.0)
289 (27.6)
 
Loop Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.239
No
888 (59.3)
256 (56.9)
632 (60.3)
 
Yes
610 (40.7)
194 (43.1)
416 (39.7)
 
Thiazide Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.063
No
1403 (93.7)
430 (95.6)
973 (92.8)
 
Yes
95 (6.3)
20 (4.4)
75 (7.2)
 
Nitrates, n (%)
   
0.056
No
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
 
Yes
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
 
Statins, n (%)
   
1
No
775 (51.7)
233 (51.8)
542 (51.7)
 
Yes
723 (48.3)
217 (48.2)
506 (48.3)
 
Antiplatelet Drugs, n (%)
   
0.808
No
841 (56.1)
250 (55.6)
591 (56.4)
 
Yes
657 (43.9)
200 (44.4)
457 (43.6)
 
Anticoagulants, n (%)
   
0.894
No
1060 (70.8)
320 (71.1)
740 (70.6)
 
Yes
438 (29.2)
130 (28.9)
308 (29.4)
 
Cardiac Glycosides, n (%)
   
0.758
No
1402 (93.6)
423 (94.0)
979 (93.4)
 
Yes
96 (6.4)
27 (6.0)
69 (6.6)
 
sGC Stimulators, n (%)
   
1
No
1484 (99.1)
446 (99.1)
1038 (99.0)
 
Yes
14 (0.9)
4 (0.9)
10 (1.0)
 
Hypertension, n (%)
   
0.24
No
453 (30.2)
126 (28.0)
327 (31.2)
 
Yes
1045 (69.8)
324 (72.0)
721 (68.8)
 
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)
   
0.564
No
954 (63.7)
292 (64.9)
662 (63.2)
 
Yes
544 (36.3)
158 (35.1)
386 (36.8)
 
Hyperlipidemia, n (%)
   
0.324
No
1442 (96.3)
437 (97.1)
1005 (95.9)
 
Yes
56 (3.7)
13 (2.9)
43 (4.1)
 
Coronary Heart Disease, n (%)
   
0.158
No
689 (46.0)
194 (43.1)
495 (47.2)
 
Yes
809 (54.0)
256 (56.9)
553 (52.8)
 
Atrial Fibrillation, n (%)
   
0.738
No
1078 (72.0)
327 (72.7)
751 (71.7)
 
Yes
420 (28.0)
123 (27.3)
297 (28.3)
 
Fatty Liver Disease, n (%)
   
0.976
No
1460 (97.5)
438 (97.3)
1022 (97.5)
 
Yes
38 (2.5)
12 (2.7)
26 (2.5)
 
Cirrhosis, n (%)
   
1
No
1490 (99.5)
448 (99.6)
1042 (99.4)
 
Yes
8 (0.5)
2 (0.4)
6 (0.6)
 
COPD, n (%)
   
0.497
No
1334 (89.1)
405 (90.0)
929 (88.6)
 
Yes
164 (10.9)
45 (10.0)
119 (11.4)
 
Chronic Cor Pulmonale, n (%)
   
0.366
No
1469 (98.1)
444 (98.7)
1025 (97.8)
 
Yes
29 (1.9)
6 (1.3)
23 (2.2)
 
Renal Insufficiency, n (%)
   
0.143
No
1092 (72.9)
316 (70.2)
776 (74.0)
 
Yes
406 (27.1)
134 (29.8)
272 (26.0)
 
Osteoporosis, n (%)
   
0.293
No
1477 (98.6)
441 (98.0)
1036 (98.9)
 
Yes
21 (1.4)
9 (2.0)
12 (1.1)
 
Cerebral Infarction, n (%)
   
0.603
No
1137 (75.9)
346 (76.9)
791 (75.5)
 
Yes
361 (24.1)
104 (23.1)
257 (24.5)
 
Malignant Tumor, n (%)
   
1
No
1387 (92.6)
417 (92.7)
970 (92.6)
 
Yes
111 (7.4)
33 (7.3)
78 (7.4)
 
Pulmonary Infection, n (%)
   
0.526
No
80 (5.3)
21 (4.7)
59 (5.6)
 
Yes
1418 (94.7)
429 (95.3)
989 (94.4)
 
Urinary Tract Infection, n (%)
   
0.31
No
1427 (95.3)
433 (96.2)
994 (94.8)
 
Yes
71 (4.7)
17 (3.8)
54 (5.2)
 
Abdominal Infection, n (%)
   
0.223
No
1462 (97.6)
443 (98.4)
1019 (97.2)
 
Yes
36 (2.4)
7 (1.6)
29 (2.8)
 
Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, n (%)
   
0.75
No
1474 (98.4)
444 (98.7)
1030 (98.3)
 
Yes
24 (1.6)
6 (1.3)
18 (1.7)
 
Bloodstream Infection, n (%)
   
0.638
No
1467 (97.9)
439 (97.6)
1028 (98.1)
 
Yes
31 (2.1)
11 (2.4)
20 (1.9)
 
Sepsis, n (%)
   
0.092
No
1442 (96.3)
427 (94.9)
1015 (96.9)
 
Yes
56 (3.7)
23 (5.1)
33 (3.1)
 
Septic Shock, n (%)
   
0.246
No
1472 (98.3)
439 (97.6)
1033 (98.6)
 
Yes
26 (1.7)
11 (2.4)
15 (1.4)
 
BNP, n (%)
   
0.13
No
356 (23.8)
95 (21.1)
261 (24.9)
 
Yes
1142 (76.2)
355 (78.9)
787 (75.1)
 
Frailty, n (%)
   
0.313
No
295 (19.7)
81 (18.0)
214 (20.4)
 
Yes
1203 (80.3)
369 (82.0)
834 (79.6)
 
Age, year
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
0.92
Hospital Days, day
10.50 [8.00, 15.00]
10.00 [8.00, 15.00]
11.00 [8.00, 16.00]
0.669
BMI, kg/m2
23.44 [21.07, 25.93]
23.53 [21.07, 26.04]
23.44 [21.08, 25.78]
0.478
Systolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
131.00 [119.00, 144.00]
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
0.509
Diastolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
76.00 [70.00, 84.00]
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
0.3
Heart Rate, bpm
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
82.00 [72.00, 92.75]
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
0.99
White Blood Cell, 109/L
6.84 [5.21, 9.24]
6.74 [5.11, 9.26]
6.86 [5.27, 9.20]
0.943
Lymphocyte Percentage, %
15.95 [9.40, 23.00]
15.30 [9.20, 22.10]
16.10 [9.50, 23.30]
0.123
Neutrophil Percentage, %
75.00 [65.50, 83.40]
75.65 [66.82, 83.50]
74.60 [65.18, 83.30]
0.136
Red Blood Cell, 109/L
3.99 [3.51, 4.45]
3.95 [3.49, 4.33]
4.01 [3.52, 4.47]
0.137
Hemoglobin, g/L
121.00 [106.00, 134.00]
120.00 [106.00, 133.00]
121.00 [105.00, 135.00]
0.282
MCHC, g/L
327.00 [319.00, 333.00]
327.00 [319.00, 334.00]
326.00 [320.00, 333.00]
0.606
Platelet, 109/L
174.00 [131.00, 226.75]
173.50 [132.00, 225.00]
174.00 [129.00, 228.00]
0.861
D-Dimer, ug/mL
0.90 [0.45, 2.14]
0.98 [0.49, 2.23]
0.88 [0.42, 2.11]
0.195
Alanine Aminotransferase, u/L
17.25 [12.00, 27.95]
17.75 [12.55, 28.00]
17.05 [12.00, 27.08]
0.282
Aspartate Aminotransferase, u/L
23.00 [17.00, 32.00]
23.60 [17.00, 31.90]
22.00 [17.00, 32.00]
0.359
Serum Albumin, g/L
35.20 [31.60, 38.40]
34.80 [31.89, 38.08]
35.35 [31.50, 38.50]
0.27
Total Bilirubin, umol/L
11.00 [7.70, 16.00]
10.80 [7.90, 16.00]
11.16 [7.60, 16.00]
0.982
Urea, mmol/L
7.44 [5.59, 10.76]
7.72 [5.85, 10.89]
7.35 [5.48, 10.73]
0.134
Creatinine, umol/L
85.28 [67.23, 120.65]
87.54 [69.08, 121.01]
84.45 [66.38, 120.43]
0.121
Uric Acid, umol/L
333.00 [246.00, 442.00]
348.94 [245.53, 454.75]
330.00 [246.65, 432.50]
0.226
Serum Potassium, mmol/L
3.84 [3.55, 4.17]
3.85 [3.55, 4.14]
3.84 [3.55, 4.19]
0.712
Serum Sodium, mmol/L
139.50 [136.80, 141.70]
139.40 [136.62, 141.57]
139.50 [136.90, 141.80]
0.397
Total Cholesterol, mmol/L
3.55 [2.93, 4.32]
3.52 [2.91, 4.30]
3.56 [2.94, 4.32]
0.567
Triglycerides, mmol/L
1.02 [0.77, 1.42]
1.03 [0.75, 1.41]
1.02 [0.78, 1.42]
0.912
High-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
0.93 [0.76, 1.13]
0.94 [0.75, 1.15]
0.93 [0.76, 1.12]
0.89
Low-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
1.94 [1.45, 2.52]
1.95 [1.47, 2.49]
1.94 [1.45, 2.54]
0.612
eGFR, ml/min
67.37 [43.70, 84.87]
64.43 [43.92, 83.73]
68.32 [43.56, 85.26]
0.196
Interleukin-6, pg/mL
16.54 [5.28, 47.33]
18.46 [5.80, 42.97]
15.02 [5.03, 50.56]
0.579
Procalcitonin, pg/mL
0.10 [0.05, 0.38]
0.11 [0.05, 0.41]
0.10 [0.05, 0.35]
0.197
C-Reactive Protein, mg/L
18.32 [5.00, 60.34]
20.86 [5.36, 61.68]
17.81 [4.86, 59.95]
0.206
LVEF, mm
61.00 [50.00, 64.00]
61.00 [51.00, 64.00]
61.00 [49.75, 64.00]
0.928
AOD, mm
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
34.00 [32.00, 37.00]
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
0.105
LAD, mm
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
44.00 [40.00, 48.00]
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
0.416
IVSD, mm
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
0.55
LVEDD, mm
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
50.00 [46.00, 56.00]
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
0.866
LVPWD, mm
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
0.153
LVESD, mm
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
0.982
Data are presented as n (%), or median (IQR). Abbreviations: NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; ARNI, Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor; ACEI, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor; ARB, Angiotensin Receptor Blocker; SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Protein-2 Inhibitors; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; sGC Stimulators, Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators; COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; BMI, Body Mass Index; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate༛LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction; AOD, Aortic Diameter; LAD, Left Atrial Diameter; IVSD, Interventricular Septum Diameter; LVEDD, Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter; LVPWD, Left Ventricular Posterior Wall Diameter; LVESD, Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter.
Supplementary Table S2. The proportion of missing values in variables.
Variables
Missing cases
Missing proportion
Body Mass Index
267
17.8%
D-Dimer
90
6.0%
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate
28
1.8%
Interleukin-6
33
2.2%
Procalcitonin
55
3.6%
C-Reactive Protein
66
4.4%
Supplementary Table S3. LASSO selection variables and collinearity analysis.
Variables
Coefficient of LASSO
VIF
Sex
0
/
Marital Status
0
/
Capacity For Action
-1.089291691
1.27905581725771
Smoking
0.006107142
1.04463748876795
Drinking
0
/
NYHA Functional Class
0.064521449
1.15457548737527
MRA
0
/
CCB
0
/
Thiazide Diuretics
-0.174604587
1.06842119376654
Cardiac Glycosides
0
/
Fatty Liver Disease
0
/
Renal Insufficiency
0
/
Cerebral Infarction
0.217238094
1.03314301978056
BNP
0
/
Age
0.084869836
1.21913769801126
BMI
0
/
Heart Rate
0
/
White Blood Cell
0
/
Lymphocyte Percentage
-0.008965525
1.2294841109636
Neutrophil Percentage
0
/
Red Blood Cell
0
/
Hemoglobin
0
/
MCHC
-0.007626577
1.05139785274571
D-Dimer
0
/
Serum Albumin
-0.025086185
1.2548677996523
Urea
0
/
Creatinine
0
/
Uric Acid
0
/
Serum Potassium
0
/
Total Cholesterol
0
/
Triglycerides
0
/
High-Density Lipoprotein
0
/
Low-Density Lipoprotein
0
/
eGFR
-0.008715936
1.23521419736874
Procalcitonin
0
/
C-Reactive Protein
0
/
LVEF
-0.005732550
1.19773998876446
Abbreviations: LASSO, Least Absolute Shrinkage And Selection Operator; VIF, Variance Inflation Factor; NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; BMI, body mass index; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
Supplementary Table S4. The optimal hyperparameters of the eight machine learning models.
Model
Hyperparameter
Optimal value
LR
c
0.1
penalty
L1
solver
liblinear
class weight
balanced
random state
1
RF
n estimators
150
max depth
3
min samples leaf
3
min samples split
8
max features
sqrt
class weight
balanced
random state
1
XGBoost
colsample bytree
0.7
gamma
1
learning rate
0.01
max depth
4
n estimators
300
reg alpha
1
reg lambda
2
min child weight
20
subsample
0.7
early stopping rounds
10
class weight
balanced
random state
1
LightGBM
colsample bytree
1
learning rate
0.01
max depth
3
n estimators
50
reg alpha
0.1
reg lambda
0
min child samples
30
subsample
0.8
class weight
balanced
random state
1
SVM
c
0.1
probability
True
kernel
linear
gamma
scale
class weight
balanced
random state
1
CatBoost
iterations
100
max depth
4
learning rate
0.05
l2 leaf reg
7
verbose
False
auto class weights
Balanced
border count
64
loss function
Logloss
random strength
1
random state
1
MLP
hidden layer sizes
(50,30)
activation
tanh
solver
adam
alpha
0.0001
max iter
500
learning rate init
0.01
early_stopping
True
random state
1
NB
priors
None
var smoothing
1e-9
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron; NB, Naive Bayes.
Supplementary Table S5.The performance metrics of the eight machine learning models on the training set.
Model
Sensitivity
Specifity
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1-Value
LR
0.826
0.808
0.823
0.944
0.826
0.881
RF
0.8
0.883
0.817
0.964
0.8
0.874
XGBoost
0.801
0.874
0.816
0.961
0.801
0.874
LightGBM
0.76
0.874
0.783
0.959
0.76
0.848
SVM
0.779
0.874
0.799
0.96
0.779
0.86
CatBoost
0.782
0.916
0.809
0.973
0.782
0.867
NB
0.765
0.874
0.787
0.959
0.765
0.851
MLP
0.772
0.902
0.799
0.968
0.772
0.859
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Supplementary Figure S1. The risk web calculator was designed based on the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model.
Model interpretation and application
Capacity for action, age, and eGFR were the three most significant factors influencing the prediction of frailty risk, according to an interpretability analysis of the optimal XGBoost model using the SHAP method. These were followed by serum albumin, MCHC, lymphocyte percentage, LVEF, NYHA functional class, history of cerebral infarction, smoking, and thiazide diuretics use (Fig. 5A). Dependency plot revealed that while capacity for action, eGFR, serum albumin, MCHC, lymphocyte percentage, LVEF, and thiazide diuretics use were negatively associated with the risk of frailty, advanced age, NYHA functional class III-IV, history of cerebral infarction, and smoking were positively associated with the risk of frailty (Fig. 5B). We developed an interactive prediction tool (https://frailty-risk-assessment.streamlit.app/) that calculates the probability of frailty risk in patients with HF co-infections in real time through a visual interface and dynamically displays the contributing weights of each clinical variable to provide a quantitative basis for clinical decision-making (Supplementary Figure S1).
Fig. 5
SHAP summary plot for the eleven influential variables in the XGBoost model. (A) The average absolute influence of each factor on the model output magnitude was presented indescending order of feature significance; (B) The graph depicted the dot estimate of the XGBoost model output, with each dot corresponding to a patient in the dataset.
Click here to Correct
Discussion
This study developed a machine learning prediction model for the occurrence of frailty in HF patients with acute infections. The prevalence of frailty in our cohort was 80.3%, which is largely consistent with the findings reported by Vidán et al [22]. The study employed eight machine learning models, with the XGBoost model demonstrating optimal performance. Through XGBoost model analysis, significant predictors associated with frailty were identified, including thiazide diuretics use, serum albumin, eGFR, lymphocyte percentage, MCHC, capacity for action, age, LVEF, NYHA functional class, history of cerebral infarction, and smoking.
This study demonstrates the model’s innovation and practical value through the following aspects: first, we incorporate well-established pharmacotherapy for HF patients with concurrent acute infections in frailty risk prediction—an advancement over previous models that omitted this critical risk factor. This refinement enhances clinical medication guidance and identifies novel intervention targets for frailty prevention. Second, the introduced XGBoost model exhibits exceptional predictive performance, with AUROC (0.872) and AUPRC (0.969) metrics significantly outperforming other comparative models. As one of the most widely utilized machine learning models in medical research, XGBoost has become a vital tool in clinical decision support systems due to its computational efficiency and superior predictive accuracy, demonstrating significant clinical applicability [23]. Additionally, this study employs SHAP to enhance the interpretability of the XGBoost model. SHAP-based visual analysis effectively reveals the predictive contributions of feature variables, enabling clinicians to precisely identify key risk predictors of frailty in patients with HF complicated by acute infections. This provides reliable evidence-based support for developing personalized treatment strategies. Finally, we successfully developed an interactive web-based application to facilitate real-time clinical data input and visual risk prediction output. This tool significantly improves clinical workflow efficiency and allows clinicians to dynamically monitor disease progression trends, offering immediate decision-making support for precision medicine. In summary, this study successfully transforms a static predictive model into a dynamic clinical decision support system by integrating a full-process framework of “patient feature input, SHAP-based real-time computation, and visualized output.” This innovative breakthrough not only facilitates the practical translation of machine learning models into clinical settings but also provides a scalable technical approach for advancing intelligent clinical decision-making.
A
The novelty of this study lies in the pioneering discovery that patients receiving thiazide diuretics therapy exhibit a significantly lower risk of potential frailty compared to those not treated with this medication. This observed association may be attributed to several mechanisms. First, thiazide diuretics primarily reduce cardiac preload and afterload by decreasing blood volume, thereby alleviating symptoms such as dyspnea and edema while improving exercise tolerance [24]. Second, a previous multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial on acute decompensated HF demonstrated that adding oral thiazide diuretics to intravenous loop diuretics mitigated adverse effects like hypokalemia, consequently preventing muscle weakness. This suggests thiazide diuretics may offer more favorable potassium-sparing effects [25]. Furthermore, in infected patients, thiazide diuretics can effectively alleviate fluid exudation caused by primary lesions. Taking pulmonary infection as an example, increased sputum production often leads to persistent or refractory cough, with some patients showing poor response to conventional expectorant therapy. For HF patients during acute infections, thiazide diuretics not only exert their inherent diuretic effects but also significantly improve symptoms of cough and dyspnea associated with pulmonary infection by modulating infection-related fluid exudation mechanisms, consequently improving the patients’ frailty condition [26, 27]. Therefore, the management of infection-associated fluid exudation is crucial, and this clinical issue warrants considerable attention.
A comparative evaluation provides compelling evidence for the significance of thiazide diuretics. Clinically, loop diuretics, as first-line agents for HF treatment, exhibit significant clinical limitations despite their widespread use. The primary concern is their propensity to induce severe electrolyte imbalances, compounded by the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of diuretic resistance. Research demonstrates that combination therapy not only effectively addresses diuretic resistance but also significantly reduces adverse drug reactions [28]. However, current studies predominantly focus on combining loop diuretics with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [29], while the potential of thiazide diuretics remains underinvestigated. Compared to loop diuretics, thiazide diuretics exert a milder diuretic effect, and their synergistic combination with loop diuretics has gained clinical recognition. This dual-therapy approach enhances diuresis, promotes weight loss, and significantly alleviates edema [25]. Our study is the first to reveal the potential role of thiazide diuretics in HF patients with acute infections. These findings align with current trends in diuretics research and reinforce the clinical relevance of thiazide diuretics. Consequently, the judicious addition of thiazide diuretics in clinical practice may serve as a preventive strategy against frailty in patients with HF and acute infections. This finding highlights the potential role of thiazide diuretics in frailty prevention beyond their conventional diuretic effects. In summary, beyond offering clinicians an optimized diuretic strategy, this discovery opens new avenues for research into pharmacological frailty prevention, carrying substantial clinical implications.
The findings revealed significantly lower serum albumin levels in the frail group compared to the non-frail group. The relationship between frailty and serum albumin can be explained through the following mechanisms: first, frail elderly individuals exhibit systemic functional decline, including compromised masticatory function. This impairment often leads to inadequate food breakdown during chewing, particularly affecting the digestion and absorption of protein-rich foods. Second, frailty adversely affects gastrointestinal function, further hindering nutrient assimilation. Third, during acute infections, frail patients demonstrate more pronounced protein catabolism compared to their non-frail counterparts [30]. Therefore, for patients with HF complicated by acute infections, nutritional management is critically important. Moreover, micronutrient supplementation (particularly of calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium) may significantly aid in restoring serum albumin levels [31].
eGFR, a key indicator of renal function, demonstrated an inverse relationship with frailty in this study. A decline in eGFR leads to overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), exacerbating fluid retention. This fluid accumulation is particularly detrimental in HF patients, whose pre-existing fluid overload further restricts mobility and accelerates frailty progression [32]. While eGFR decline is irreversible, the judicious selection of nephroprotective pharmacological agents may help slow the progression of renal insufficiency, thereby delaying the onset of frailty. Furthermore, lymphocyte percentage serves as a key indicator of immune system function, with its decline reflecting impaired immunity and significantly elevating frailty risk [33]. During acute infections, lymphocyte percentage emerges as a clinically significant predictor of frailty among various infection markers. Notably, evidence suggests that enhanced physical activity may prevent immunosenescence and mitigate frailty progression [34].
MCHC, a key diagnostic parameter for anemia, reflects the hemoglobin concentration within red blood cells. A low MCHC often indicates potential iron deficiency in the body. Iron is an essential element for erythropoiesis, and its deficiency can impair hemoglobin synthesis, reducing the oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells. This leads to systemic tissue hypoxia, which may manifest as muscle weakness, fatigue, and decreased exercise tolerance [35, 36]. Furthermore, chronic hypoxia can disrupt mitochondrial function, decreasing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production and limiting energy supply for daily activities, thereby accelerating frailty progression [37]. Therefore, increasing dietary iron intake may help improve frailty status in these patients.
This study demonstrates that patients who remain ambulatory are less prone to frailty compared to those who are wheelchair-dependent or bedridden. Therefore, for patients with HF and acute infections, exercise-based rehabilitation should be prioritized to improve mobility. Although physical activity increases myocardial oxygen demand and may transiently worsen HF symptoms, judicious exercise promotes muscle recovery, enhances the capacity for action, and reduces frailty riskࣧprovided the intensity remains within individualized thresholds [38]. This necessitates careful supervision by experienced clinicians to optimize the risk-benefit balance. In summary, personalized exercise prescriptions should be implemented for this population to achieve measurable benefits. In addition, our study found that advanced age significantly increases the likelihood of frailty development, which aligns with previous reports [39]. The study also highlights associations between decreased LVEF, elevated NYHA functional class, history of cerebral infarction, smoking, and elevated frailty risk.
Limitations
Although this study has yielded significant findings, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, ADL and IADL assessments primarily rely on self-reported data, which may introduce recall bias, subjective overestimation, or underestimation. Additionally, the scale is typically used for static evaluations, making it difficult to capture short-term fluctuations in functional status. Second, the data were derived exclusively from a subset of elderly patients at a specific tertiary class-A public hospital in Nanjing. As a single-center study, the generalizability of the results is inherently limited. Future research should incorporate larger, multi-center cohorts to enhance external validity. Finally, this study was based solely on retrospective data and lacked long-term follow-up. Subsequent investigations should include prospective follow-up to validate the reliability of the current predictive model.
Conclusion
This study developed a frailty prediction model for patients with HF complicated by acute infections. The model incorporates 11 readily accessible predictors. A key innovation of this study lies in its pioneering inclusion of thiazide diuretics within the frailty prediction system, a breakthrough that addresses a critical research gap in pharmacological interventions for frailty among HF patients with acute infections. We also developed a clinically accessible online calculator that enables clinicians to input patient clinical data in real-time and instantly obtain frailty risk assessment results. This tool facilitates the early identification of high-risk individuals and supports the implementation of personalized interventions.
Abbreviations
HF
Heart failure
NYHA functional class
New York Heart Association functional class
CFS
Clinical Frailty Scale
ADL
Activities of Daily Living
IADL
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
BMI
Body Mass Index
ARNI
Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor
ACEI
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
ARB
Angiotensin receptor blocker
SGLT-2 inhibitors
Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 inhibitors
MRA
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist
CCB
Calcium channel blocker
sGC stimulators
Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators
COPD
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
MCHC
Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration
eGFR
Estimated glomerular filtration rate
BNP
B-type natriuretic peptide
NT-proBNP
N-terminal pro-BNP
LVEF
Left ventricular ejection fraction
AOD
Aortic diameter
LAD
Left atrial diameter
IVSD
Interventricular septum diameter
LVEDD
Left ventricular end diastolic diameter
LVPWD
Left ventricular posterior wall diameter
LVESD
Left ventricular end systolic diameter
KNN
K-nearest neighbors
LASSO
Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
VIF
Variance inflation factor
AUROC
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve
AUPRC
Area under the precision-recall curve
DCA
Decision curve analysis
SHAP
SHapley Additive exPlanations
LR
Logistic regression
RF
Random forest
XGBoost
eXtreme Gradient Boosting
LightGBM
Light gradient boosting machines
SVM
Support vector machine
CatBoost
Categorical boosting
NB
Naive bayes
MLP
Multilayer perceptron
RAAS
Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system
ATP
Adenosine triphosphate
A
Acknowledgement
We gratefully acknowledge all research participants and individuals involved in data collection.
A
Author Contribution
Tinghui Huang, Shuyi Liu, and Siyu Zhang (co-first authors) contributed equally to this work. HTH and SYY conceived the research idea, designed the methodology, and developed the overall framework of this study. HTH and LSY were responsible for data collection. ZSY conducted the data analysis, as well as the development and interpretation of the model. SX, XM, and WHL were responsible for the model visualization. HTH, LSY, and ZSY (co-first authors) contributed to the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors participated in reviewing and critically revising the manuscript. ZJJ and SYY (corresponding authors) supervised the research. All authors have reviewed the final version of the manuscript, approved its submission, and consented to its publication.
A
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [82173899], the Jiangsu Pharmaceutical Association [H202108, A2021024, Q202202, JY202207, Z04JKM2023E040], and the Hospital Management Innovation Research Project of Jiangsu Provincial Hospital Association (JSYGY-3-2023-264).
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing First Hospital (Approval No. KY20250120-KS-03). As this was a retrospective study, the Ethics Committee waived the requirement for informed consent. This study was conducted by the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
All authors declare no competing interests.
Author details
aDepartment of General Practice, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210000, Jiangsu, China. bSchool of Basic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacy, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 211198, Jiangsu, China. cDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210006, Jiangsu, China. dDepartment of Pharmacy, Nanjing First Hospital, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, 210006, Jiangsu, China.
References
1.
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56. 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146.
2.
Seferović PM, Jankowska E, Coats AJS, Maggioni AP, Lopatin Y, Milinković I, et al. The Heart Failure Association Atlas: rationale, objectives, and methods. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(4):638–45. 10.1002/ejhf.1768.
3.
Kularatna S, Jadambaa A, Hewage S, Brain D, McPhail S, Parsonage W. Global, regional, and national burden of heart failure associated with atrial fibrillation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023;23(1):345. 10.1186/s12872-023-03375-9.
4.
Ng TMH, Oh EE, Bae-Shaaw YH, Minejima E, Joyce G. Acute Bacterial Infections and Longitudinal Risk of Readmissions and Mortality in Patients Hospitalized with Heart Failure. J Clin Med 2022. 2022;11(3). 10.3390/jcm11030740.
5.
Liu P, Li Y, Zhang Y, Mesbah SE, Ji T, Ma L. Frailty and hypertension in older adults: current understanding and future perspectives. Hypertens Res. 2020;43(12):1352–60. 10.1038/s41440-020-0510-5.
6.
Lee HY, Lee J, Jung YS, Kwon WY, Oh DK, Park MH, et al. Preexisting Clinical Frailty Is Associated With Worse Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(5):780–90. 10.1097/ccm.0000000000005360.
7.
Björklund J, Pettersson L, Agvall B. Factors affecting hospitalization and mortality in a retrospective study of elderly patients with heart failure. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):227. 10.1186/s12872-024-03871-6.
8.
Chao CT, Lee SY, Wang J, Chien KL, Huang JW. Frailty increases the risk for developing urinary tract infection among 79,887 patients with diabetic mellitus and chronic kidney disease. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):349. 10.1186/s12877-021-02299-3.
9.
Kundi H, Wadhera RK, Strom JB, Valsdottir LR, Shen C, Kazi DS, et al. Association of Frailty With 30-Day Outcomes for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia Among Elderly Adults. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(11):1084–91. 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.3511.
10.
Shin S, Austin PC, Ross HJ, Abdel-Qadir H, Freitas C, Tomlinson G, et al. Machine learning vs. conventional statistical models for predicting heart failure readmission and mortality. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8(1):106–15. 10.1002/ehf2.13073.
11.
Rajula HSR, Verlato G, Manchia M, Antonucci N, Fanos V. Comparison of Conventional Statistical Methods with Machine Learning in Medicine: Diagnosis, Drug Development, and Treatment. Med (Kaunas). 2020;56(9). 10.3390/medicina56090455.
12.
Hsu WH, Ko AT, Weng CS, Chang CL, Jan YT, Lin JB, et al. Explainable machine learning model for predicting skeletal muscle loss during surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14(5):2044–53. 10.1002/jcsm.13282.
13.
Schwenck J, Sonanini D, Cotton JM, Rammensee HG, la Fougère C, Zender L, et al. Advances in PET imaging of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2023;23(7):474–90. 10.1038/s41568-023-00576-4.
14.
Zhang SY. Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure 2024. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2025;22(3):277–331. 10.26599/1671-5411.2025.03.002.
15.
Weber M, Hamm C. Role of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and NT-proBNP in clinical routine. Heart. 2006;92(6):843–9. 10.1136/hrt.2005.071233.
16.
Altman NS. An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am Stat. 1992;46(3):175–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879.
17.
Shalabi LA, Shaaban Z, Kasasbeh B. Data Mining: A Preprocessing Engine. J Comput Sci. 2006;2(9):735–39. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2006.735.739.
18.
Okada S, Ohzeki M, Taguchi S. Efficient partition of integer optimization problems with one-hot encoding. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):13036. 10.1038/s41598-019-49539-6.
19.
Vasquez MM, Hu C, Roe DJ, Chen Z, Halonen M, Guerra S. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator type methods for the identification of serum biomarkers of overweight and obesity: simulation and application. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):154. 10.1186/s12874-016-0254-8.
20.
Slinker BK, Glantz SA. Multiple regression for physiological data analysis: the problem of multicollinearity. Am J Physiol. 1985;249(1 Pt 2):R1–12. 10.1152/ajpregu.1985.249.1.R1.
21.
Lundberg S, Lee SI. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, California, 2017. Curran Associates Inc, Red Hook, NY, USA. 2017;4768–77. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
22.
Vidán MT, Blaya-Novakova V, Sánchez E, Ortiz J, Serra-Rexach JA, Bueno H. Prevalence and prognostic impact of frailty and its components in non-dependent elderly patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(7):869–75. 10.1002/ejhf.518.
23.
Liu J, Wu J, Liu S, Li M, Hu K, Li K. Predicting mortality of patients with acute kidney injury in the ICU using XGBoost model. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2):e0246306. 10.1371/journal.pone.0246306.
24.
Mullens W, Damman K, Harjola VP, Mebazaa A, Brunner-La Rocca HP, Martens P, et al. The use of diuretics in heart failure with congestion - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(2):137–55. 10.1002/ejhf.1369.
25.
Trullàs JC, Morales-Rull JL, Casado J, Carrera-Izquierdo M, Sánchez-Marteles M, Conde-Martel A, et al. Combining loop with thiazide diuretics for decompensated heart failure: the CLOROTIC trial. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(5):411–21. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac689.
26.
Wang B, Sha W, Gui S, Zou ZY. Efficacy of albumin and loop diuretic Co-administration in reducing mortality among septic patients with hypoalbuminemia. Eur J Pharmacol. 2025;999:177692. 10.1016/j.ejphar.2025.177692.
27.
Meyer Sauteur PM. Challenges and Progress Toward Determining Pneumonia Etiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(3):514–16. 10.1093/cid/ciz879.
28.
Martens P, Testani J, Damman K. Prevention and treatment of diuretic resistance in acute heart failure: when to use which combination of diuretics? Eur Heart J. 2023;44(31):2978–81. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad463.
29.
Miura M, Sugimura K, Sakata Y, Miyata S, Tadaki S, Yamauchi T, et al. Prognostic Impact of Loop Diuretics in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure - Effects of Addition of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and β-Blockers. Circ J. 2016;80(6):1396–403. 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0216.
30.
Zhang L, Yang P, Yin F, Zhang J, Zhao B, Zhou J. Association between frailty and hypoproteinaemia in older patients: meta-analysis and systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24(1):689. 10.1186/s12877-024-05275-9.
31.
Yamamoto M, Adachi H, Enomoto M, Fukami A, Nakamura S, Nohara Y, et al. Lower albumin levels are associated with frailty measures, trace elements, and an inflammation marker in a cross-sectional study in Tanushimaru. Environ Health Prev Med. 2021;26(1):25. 10.1186/s12199-021-00946-0.
32.
Hein AM, Scialla JJ, Sun JL, Greene SJ, Shaw LK, Chiswell K, et al. Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Variability in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease. J Card Fail. 2021;27(11):1175–84. 10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.04.016.
33.
Xu Z, Wang Y, Li X, Hou X, Yue S, Wang J, et al. Interacting and joint effects of frailty and inflammation on cardiovascular disease risk and the mediating role of inflammation in middle-aged and elderly populations. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025;25(1):118. 10.1186/s12872-025-04567-1.
34.
Navarro-Martínez R, Cauli O. Lymphocytes as a Biomarker of Frailty Syndrome: A Scoping Review. Diseases. 2021;9(3). 10.3390/diseases9030053.
35.
Xu L, Zhang J, Shen S, Liu Z, Zeng X, Yang Y, et al. Clinical Frailty Scale and Biomarkers for Assessing Frailty in Elder Inpatients in China. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(1):77–83. 10.1007/s12603-020-1455-8.
36.
Choy M, Zhen Z, Dong B, Chen C, Dong Y, Liu C, et al. Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ESC Heart Fail. 2023;10(2):1214–21. 10.1002/ehf2.14225.
37.
Kumar P, Liu C, Hsu JW, Chacko S, Minard C, Jahoor F, et al. Glycine and N-acetylcysteine (GlyNAC) supplementation in older adults improves glutathione deficiency, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, insulin resistance, endothelial dysfunction, genotoxicity, muscle strength, and cognition: Results of a pilot clinical trial. Clin Transl Med. 2021;11(3):e372. 10.1002/ctm2.372.
38.
Angulo J, El Assar M, Álvarez-Bustos A, Rodríguez-Mañas L. Physical activity and exercise: Strategies to manage frailty. Redox Biol. 2020;35:101513. 10.1016/j.redox.2020.101513.
39.
Xu J, Xiang L, Zhang H, Sun X, Xu D, Wu D, et al. Prevalence and modifiable risk factors of cognitive frailty in patients with chronic heart failure in China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):93. 10.1186/s12872-024-03753-x.
Click here to Correct
Table 1. Demographics and potential risk factors of patients in the training set.
Variables
Overall (n = 1048)
No Frailty(n = 214)
Frailty (n = 834)
p
Sex, n (%)
   
0.004
Female
425 (40.6)
68 (31.8)
357 (42.8)
 
Male
623 (59.4)
146 (68.2)
477 (57.2)
 
Marital Status, n (%)
   
< 0.001
Unmarried
3 (0.3)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.4)
 
Divorced And Widowed
79 (7.5)
2 (0.9)
77 (9.2)
 
Married
966 (92.2)
212 (99.1)
754 (90.4)
 
Literacy, n (%)
   
0.126
Illiteracy
172 (16.4)
24 (11.2)
148 (17.7)
 
Primary School
329 (31.4)
69 (32.2)
260 (31.2)
 
Junior High School
284 (27.1)
67 (31.3)
217 (26.0)
 
Senior High School
166 (15.8)
31 (14.5)
135 (16.2)
 
College Degree Or Above
97 (9.3)
23 (10.7)
74 (8.9)
 
Capacity For Action, n (%)
   
< 0.001
Bedridden
323 (30.8)
2 (0.9)
321 (38.5)
 
Wheelchair-Dependent
88 (8.4)
0 (0.0)
88 (10.6)
 
Ambulatory
637 (60.8)
212 (99.1)
425 (51.0)
 
Smoking, n (%)
   
0.008
No
727 (69.4)
165 (77.1)
562 (67.4)
 
Yes
321 (30.6)
49 (22.9)
272 (32.6)
 
Drinking, n (%)
   
0.022
No
979 (93.4)
192 (89.7)
787 (94.4)
 
Yes
69 (6.6)
22 (10.3)
47 (5.6)
 
NYHA Functional Class, n (%)
   
< 0.001
412 (39.3)
113 (52.8)
299 (35.9)
 
446 (42.6)
86 (40.2)
360 (43.2)
 
190 (18.1)
15 (7.0)
175 (21.0)
 
Medicine, n (%)
   
0.266
<5
423 (40.4)
94 (43.9)
329 (39.4)
 
≥ 5
625 (59.6)
120 (56.1)
505 (60.6)
 
ARNI, n (%)
   
0.218
No
817 (78.0)
174 (81.3)
643 (77.1)
 
Yes
231 (22.0)
40 (18.7)
191 (22.9)
 
SGLT-2 Inhibitors, n (%)
   
0.402
No
838 (80.0)
176 (82.2)
662 (79.4)
 
Yes
210 (20.0)
38 (17.8)
172 (20.6)
 
Beta Receptor Blockers, n (%)
   
0.291
No
657 (62.7)
127 (59.3)
530 (63.5)
 
Yes
391 (37.3)
87 (40.7)
304 (36.5)
 
MRA, n (%)
   
0.008
No
577 (55.1)
100 (46.7)
477 (57.2)
 
Yes
471 (44.9)
114 (53.3)
357 (42.8)
 
ACEI/ARB, n (%)
   
0.475
No
923 (88.1)
192 (89.7)
731 (87.6)
 
Yes
125 (11.9)
22 (10.3)
103 (12.4)
 
CCB, n (%)
   
0.032
No
759 (72.4)
168 (78.5)
591 (70.9)
 
Yes
289 (27.6)
46 (21.5)
243 (29.1)
 
Loop Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.702
No
632 (60.3)
132 (61.7)
500 (60.0)
 
Yes
416 (39.7)
82 (38.3)
334 (40.0)
 
Thiazide Diuretics, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
973 (92.8)
178 (83.2)
795 (95.3)
 
Yes
75 (7.2)
36 (16.8)
39 (4.7)
 
Nitrates, n (%)
   
0.232
No
939 (89.6)
197 (92.1)
742 (89.0)
 
Yes
109 (10.4)
17 (7.9)
92 (11.0)
 
Statins, n (%)
   
0.176
No
542 (51.7)
120 (56.1)
422 (50.6)
 
Yes
506 (48.3)
94 (43.9)
412 (49.4)
 
Antiplatelet Drugs, n (%)
   
0.116
No
591 (56.4)
110 (51.4)
481 (57.7)
 
Yes
457 (43.6)
104 (48.6)
353 (42.3)
 
Anticoagulants, n (%)
   
0.106
No
740 (70.6)
141 (65.9)
599 (71.8)
 
Yes
308 (29.4)
73 (34.1)
235 (28.2)
 
Cardiac Glycosides, n (%)
   
0.019
No
979 (93.4)
208 (97.2)
771 (92.4)
 
Yes
69 (6.6)
6 (2.8)
63 (7.6)
 
sGC Stimulators, n (%)
   
0.669
No
1038 (99.0)
213 (99.5)
825 (98.9)
 
Yes
10 (1.0)
1 (0.5)
9 (1.1)
 
Hypertension, n (%)
   
0.833
No
327 (31.2)
65 (30.4)
262 (31.4)
 
Yes
721 (68.8)
149 (69.6)
572 (68.6)
 
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)
   
0.101
No
662 (63.2)
146 (68.2)
516 (61.9)
 
Yes
386 (36.8)
68 (31.8)
318 (38.1)
 
Hyperlipidemia, n (%)
   
0.914
No
1005 (95.9)
206 (96.3)
799 (95.8)
 
Yes
43 (4.1)
8 (3.7)
35 (4.2)
 
Coronary Heart Disease, n (%)
   
0.692
No
495 (47.2)
98 (45.8)
397 (47.6)
 
Yes
553 (52.8)
116 (54.2)
437 (52.4)
 
Atrial Fibrillation, n (%)
   
0.084
No
751 (71.7)
164 (76.6)
587 (70.4)
 
Yes
297 (28.3)
50 (23.4)
247 (29.6)
 
Fatty Liver Disease, n (%)
   
0.002
No
1022 (97.5)
202 (94.4)
820 (98.3)
 
Yes
26 (2.5)
12 (5.6)
14 (1.7)
 
Cirrhosis, n (%)
   
0.78
No
1042 (99.4)
212 (99.1)
830 (99.5)
 
Yes
6 (0.6)
2 (0.9)
4 (0.5)
 
COPD, n (%)
   
0.499
No
929 (88.6)
193 (90.2)
736 (88.2)
 
Yes
119 (11.4)
21 (9.8)
98 (11.8)
 
Chronic Cor Pulmonale, n (%)
   
0.095
No
1025 (97.8)
213 (99.5)
812 (97.4)
 
Yes
23 (2.2)
1 (0.5)
22 (2.6)
 
Renal Insufficiency, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
776 (74.0)
190 (88.8)
586 (70.3)
 
Yes
272 (26.0)
24 (11.2)
248 (29.7)
 
Osteoporosis, n (%)
   
0.494
No
1036 (98.9)
213 (99.5)
823 (98.7)
 
Yes
12 (1.1)
1 (0.5)
11 (1.3)
 
Cerebral Infarction, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
791 (75.5)
188 (87.9)
603 (72.3)
 
Yes
257 (24.5)
26 (12.1)
231 (27.7)
 
Malignant Tumor, n (%)
   
0.901
No
970 (92.6)
199 (93.0)
771 (92.4)
 
Yes
78 (7.4)
15 (7.0)
63 (7.6)
 
Pulmonary Infection, n (%)
   
0.88
No
59(5.6)
13(6.1)
46(5.5)
 
Yes
989 (94.4)
201 (93.9)
788 (94.5)
 
Urinary Tract Infection, n (%)
   
0.117
No
994 (94.8)
208 (97.2)
786 (94.2)
 
Yes
54 (5.2)
6 (2.8)
48 (5.8)
 
Abdominal Infection, n (%)
   
0.844
No
1019 (97.2)
209 (97.7)
810 (97.1)
 
Yes
29 (2.8)
5 (2.3)
24 (2.9)
 
Skin And Soft Tissue Infection, n (%)
   
0.199
No
1030 (98.3)
213 (99.5)
817 (98.0)
 
Yes
18 (1.7)
1 (0.5)
17 (2.0)
 
Bloodstream Infection, n (%)
   
0.428
No
1028 (98.1)
208 (97.2)
820 (98.3)
 
Yes
20 (1.9)
6 (2.8)
14 (1.7)
 
Sepsis, n (%)
   
0.063
No
1015 (96.9)
212 (99.1)
803 (96.3)
 
Yes
33 (3.1)
2 (0.9)
31 (3.7)
 
Septic Shock, n (%)
   
1
No
1033 (98.6)
211 (98.6)
822 (98.6)
 
Yes
15 (1.4)
3 (1.4)
12 (1.4)
 
BNP, n (%)
   
< 0.001
No
261 (24.9)
86 (40.2)
175 (21.0)
 
Yes
787 (75.1)
128 (59.8)
659 (79.0)
 
Systolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
130.00 [120.00, 141.75]
130.00 [118.00, 143.75]
0.946
Diastolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
76.00 [70.00, 81.00]
76.00 [68.00, 83.75]
0.83
Heart Rate, bpm
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
80.00 [70.00, 88.75]
81.50 [73.00, 95.00]
0.001
White Blood Cell, 109/L
6.86 [5.27, 9.20]
6.20 [5.01, 8.32]
7.08 [5.32, 9.42]
0.002
Lymphocyte Percentage, %
16.10 [9.50, 23.30]
21.95 [15.00, 29.48]
14.55 [8.62, 21.98]
< 0.001
Neutrophil Percentage, %
74.60 [65.18, 83.30]
68.30 [59.12, 76.65]
76.40 [66.95, 84.70]
< 0.001
Red Blood Cell, 109/L
4.01 [3.52, 4.47]
4.28 [3.88, 4.57]
3.92 [3.45, 4.41]
< 0.001
Hemoglobin, g/L
121.00 [105.00, 135.00]
130.00 [118.00, 140.75]
119.00 [102.00, 133.00]
< 0.001
MCHC, g/L
326.00 [320.00, 333.00]
330.00 [324.00, 334.75]
326.00 [318.00, 332.00]
< 0.001
Platelet, 109/L
174.00 [129.00, 228.00]
173.00 [134.00, 224.50]
174.00 [128.00, 228.00]
0.704
D-Dimer, ug/mL
0.88 [0.42, 2.11]
0.46 [0.26, 0.91]
1.08 [0.53, 2.43]
< 0.001
Alanine Aminotransferase, u/L
17.05 [12.00, 27.08]
18.25 [13.00, 26.00]
17.00 [11.00, 27.73]
0.056
Aspartate Aminotransferase, u/L
22.00 [17.00, 32.00]
20.00 [17.00, 28.00]
23.00 [17.00, 33.00]
0.067
Serum Albumin, g/L
35.35 [31.50, 38.50]
38.20 [35.00, 39.90]
34.60 [30.89, 37.90]
< 0.001
Total Bilirubin, umol/L
11.16 [7.60, 16.00]
11.55 [8.03, 16.04]
11.00 [7.43, 16.00]
0.355
Urea, mmol/L
7.35 [5.48, 10.73]
6.10 [5.07, 7.90]
7.74 [5.67, 11.48]
< 0.001
Creatinine, umol/L
84.45 [66.38, 120.43]
73.90 [62.74, 90.30]
89.05 [67.81, 128.90]
< 0.001
Uric Acid, umol/L
330.00 [246.65, 432.50]
316.36 [240.75, 394.65]
338.50 [247.50, 446.45]
0.035
Serum Potassium, mmol/L
3.84 [3.55, 4.19]
3.79 [3.52, 4.08]
3.86 [3.55, 4.22]
0.038
Serum Sodium, mmol/L
139.50 [136.90, 141.80]
139.55 [137.80, 141.50]
139.50 [136.70, 141.90]
0.469
Total Cholesterol, mmol/L
3.56 [2.94, 4.32]
3.86 [3.22, 4.48]
3.49 [2.87, 4.28]
< 0.001
Triglycerides, mmol/L
1.02 [0.78, 1.42]
1.10 [0.84, 1.49]
1.01 [0.77, 1.41]
0.016
High-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
0.93 [0.76, 1.12]
0.97 [0.82, 1.13]
0.92 [0.74, 1.12]
0.014
Low-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
1.94 [1.45, 2.54]
2.21 [1.68, 2.64]
1.88 [1.42, 2.52]
< 0.001
eGFR, ml/min
68.32 [43.56, 85.26]
84.97 [66.05, 91.14]
62.96 [40.16, 82.04]
< 0.001
Interleukin-6, pg/mL
15.02 [5.03, 50.56]
12.42 [3.50, 56.88]
16.50 [5.69, 46.87]
0.08
Procalcitonin, pg/mL
0.10 [0.05, 0.35]
0.08 [0.04, 0.19]
0.11 [0.05, 0.42]
0.001
C-Reactive Protein, mg/L
17.81 [4.86, 59.95]
7.69 [2.52, 40.55]
20.19 [6.19, 63.43]
< 0.001
LVEF, mm
61.00 [49.75, 64.00]
63.00 [58.25, 65.00]
61.00 [48.00, 63.00]
< 0.001
AOD, mm
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
34.00 [31.00, 37.00]
33.00 [31.00, 36.00]
0.494
LAD, mm
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
44.00 [38.25, 49.00]
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
0.455
IVSD, mm
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [10.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
0.2
LVEDD, mm
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
50.00 [47.00, 55.00]
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
0.365
LVPWD, mm
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
10.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
0.175
LVESD, mm
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 37.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.38]
0.464
Age, year
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
72.00 [68.00, 75.75]
79.00 [74.00, 85.00]
< 0.001
Hospital Days, day
11.00 [8.00, 16.00]
11.00 [7.00, 18.00]
10.00 [8.00, 15.00]
0.209
BMI, kg/m2
23.44 [21.08, 25.78]
24.03 [21.99, 25.91]
23.23 [20.81, 25.75]
0.006
Data are presented as n (%), or median (IQR). Abbreviations: NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; ARNI, Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor; SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Protein-2 Inhibitors; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; ACEI, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor; ARB, Angiotensin Receptor Blocker; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; sGC Stimulators, Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators; COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction; AOD, Aortic Diameter; LAD, Left Atrial Diameter; IVSD, Interventricular Septum Diameter; LVEDD, Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter; LVPWD, Left Ventricular Posterior Wall Diameter; LVESD, Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter; BMI, Body Mass Index.
Table 2. The performance metrics of the eight machine learning models on the testing set.
Model
Sensitivity
Specifity
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1-Value
LR
0.824
0.691
0.8
0.924
0.824
0.871
RF
0.775
0.753
0.771
0.935
0.775
0.847
XGBoost
0.783
0.802
0.787
0.948
0.783
0.858
LightGBM
0.734
0.852
0.756
0.958
0.734
0.831
SVM
0.762
0.778
0.764
0.94
0.762
0.841
CatBoost
0.764
0.79
0.769
0.943
0.764
0.844
NB
0.745
0.778
0.751
0.939
0.745
0.831
MLP
0.767
0.716
0.758
0.925
0.767
0.839
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Supplementary Table S1. Demographics and potential risk factors in the testing and training set.
Variables
Overall (n = 1498)
Testing set (n = 450)
Training set (n = 1048)
p
Sex, n (%)
   
0.701
Female
602 (40.2)
177 (39.3)
425 (40.6)
 
Male
896 (59.8)
273 (60.7)
623 (59.4)
 
Marital Status, n (%)
   
0.854
Unmarried
5 (0.3)
2 (0.4)
3 (0.3)
 
Divorced And Widowed
111 (7.4)
32 (7.1)
79 (7.5)
 
Married
1382 (92.3)
416 (92.4)
966 (92.2)
 
Literacy, n (%)
   
0.676
Illiteracy
247 (16.5)
75 (16.7)
172 (16.4)
 
Primary School
454 (30.3)
125 (27.8)
329 (31.4)
 
Junior High School
413 (27.6)
129 (28.7)
284 (27.1)
 
Senior High School
239 (16.0)
73 (16.2)
166 (15.8)
 
College Degree Or Above
145 (9.7)
48 (10.7)
97 (9.3)
 
Capacity For Action, n (%)
   
0.787
Bedridden
469 (31.3)
146 (32.4)
323 (30.8)
 
Wheelchair-Dependent
127 (8.5)
39 (8.7)
88 (8.4)
 
Ambulatory
902 (60.2)
265 (58.9)
637 (60.8)
 
Smoking, n (%)
   
0.01
No
1008 (67.3)
281 (62.4)
727 (69.4)
 
Yes
490 (32.7)
169 (37.6)
321 (30.6)
 
Drinking, n (%)
   
0.066
No
1411 (94.2)
432 (96.0)
979 (93.4)
 
Yes
87 (5.8)
18 (4.0)
69 (6.6)
 
NYHA Functional Class, n (%)
   
0.119
568 (37.9)
156 (34.7)
412 (39.3)
 
663 (44.3)
217 (48.2)
446 (42.6)
 
267 (17.8)
77 (17.1)
190 (18.1)
 
Medicine, n (%)
   
0.753
No
600 (40.1)
177 (39.3)
423 (40.4)
 
Yes
898 (59.9)
273 (60.7)
625 (59.6)
 
ARNI, n (%)
   
1
No
1168 (78.0)
351 (78.0)
817 (78.0)
 
Yes
330 (22.0)
99 (22.0)
231 (22.0)
 
ACEI/ARB, n (%)
   
1
No
1320 (88.1)
397 (88.2)
923 (88.1)
 
Yes
178 (11.9)
53 (11.8)
125 (11.9)
 
SGLT-2 Inhibitors,n(%)
   
0.146
No
1213 (81.0)
375 (83.3)
838 (80.0)
 
Yes
285 (19.0)
75 (16.7)
210 (20.0)
 
Beta Receptor Blockers, n (%)
   
0.243
No
924 (61.7)
267 (59.3)
657 (62.7)
 
Yes
574 (38.3)
183 (40.7)
391 (37.3)
 
MRA, n (%)
   
0.632
No
818 (54.6)
241 (53.6)
577 (55.1)
 
Yes
680 (45.4)
209 (46.4)
471 (44.9)
 
CCB, n (%)
   
0.372
No
1074 (71.7)
315 (70.0)
759 (72.4)
 
Yes
424 (28.3)
135 (30.0)
289 (27.6)
 
Loop Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.239
No
888 (59.3)
256 (56.9)
632 (60.3)
 
Yes
610 (40.7)
194 (43.1)
416 (39.7)
 
Thiazide Diuretics, n (%)
   
0.063
No
1403 (93.7)
430 (95.6)
973 (92.8)
 
Yes
95 (6.3)
20 (4.4)
75 (7.2)
 
Nitrates, n (%)
   
0.056
No
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
 
Yes
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
109 (10.4)
 
Statins, n (%)
   
1
No
775 (51.7)
233 (51.8)
542 (51.7)
 
Yes
723 (48.3)
217 (48.2)
506 (48.3)
 
Antiplatelet Drugs, n (%)
   
0.808
No
841 (56.1)
250 (55.6)
591 (56.4)
 
Yes
657 (43.9)
200 (44.4)
457 (43.6)
 
Anticoagulants, n (%)
   
0.894
No
1060 (70.8)
320 (71.1)
740 (70.6)
 
Yes
438 (29.2)
130 (28.9)
308 (29.4)
 
Cardiac Glycosides, n (%)
   
0.758
No
1402 (93.6)
423 (94.0)
979 (93.4)
 
Yes
96 (6.4)
27 (6.0)
69 (6.6)
 
sGC Stimulators, n (%)
   
1
No
1484 (99.1)
446 (99.1)
1038 (99.0)
 
Yes
14 (0.9)
4 (0.9)
10 (1.0)
 
Hypertension, n (%)
   
0.24
No
453 (30.2)
126 (28.0)
327 (31.2)
 
Yes
1045 (69.8)
324 (72.0)
721 (68.8)
 
Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)
   
0.564
No
954 (63.7)
292 (64.9)
662 (63.2)
 
Yes
544 (36.3)
158 (35.1)
386 (36.8)
 
Hyperlipidemia, n (%)
   
0.324
No
1442 (96.3)
437 (97.1)
1005 (95.9)
 
Yes
56 (3.7)
13 (2.9)
43 (4.1)
 
Coronary Heart Disease, n (%)
   
0.158
No
689 (46.0)
194 (43.1)
495 (47.2)
 
Yes
809 (54.0)
256 (56.9)
553 (52.8)
 
Atrial Fibrillation, n (%)
   
0.738
No
1078 (72.0)
327 (72.7)
751 (71.7)
 
Yes
420 (28.0)
123 (27.3)
297 (28.3)
 
Fatty Liver Disease, n (%)
   
0.976
No
1460 (97.5)
438 (97.3)
1022 (97.5)
 
Yes
38 (2.5)
12 (2.7)
26 (2.5)
 
Cirrhosis, n (%)
   
1
No
1490 (99.5)
448 (99.6)
1042 (99.4)
 
Yes
8 (0.5)
2 (0.4)
6 (0.6)
 
COPD, n (%)
   
0.497
No
1334 (89.1)
405 (90.0)
929 (88.6)
 
Yes
164 (10.9)
45 (10.0)
119 (11.4)
 
Chronic Cor Pulmonale, n (%)
   
0.366
No
1469 (98.1)
444 (98.7)
1025 (97.8)
 
Yes
29 (1.9)
6 (1.3)
23 (2.2)
 
Renal Insufficiency, n (%)
   
0.143
No
1092 (72.9)
316 (70.2)
776 (74.0)
 
Yes
406 (27.1)
134 (29.8)
272 (26.0)
 
Osteoporosis, n (%)
   
0.293
No
1477 (98.6)
441 (98.0)
1036 (98.9)
 
Yes
21 (1.4)
9 (2.0)
12 (1.1)
 
Cerebral Infarction, n (%)
   
0.603
No
1137 (75.9)
346 (76.9)
791 (75.5)
 
Yes
361 (24.1)
104 (23.1)
257 (24.5)
 
Malignant Tumor, n (%)
   
1
No
1387 (92.6)
417 (92.7)
970 (92.6)
 
Yes
111 (7.4)
33 (7.3)
78 (7.4)
 
Pulmonary Infection, n (%)
   
0.526
No
80 (5.3)
21 (4.7)
59 (5.6)
 
Yes
1418 (94.7)
429 (95.3)
989 (94.4)
 
Urinary Tract Infection, n (%)
   
0.31
No
1427 (95.3)
433 (96.2)
994 (94.8)
 
Yes
71 (4.7)
17 (3.8)
54 (5.2)
 
Abdominal Infection, n (%)
   
0.223
No
1462 (97.6)
443 (98.4)
1019 (97.2)
 
Yes
36 (2.4)
7 (1.6)
29 (2.8)
 
Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, n (%)
   
0.75
No
1474 (98.4)
444 (98.7)
1030 (98.3)
 
Yes
24 (1.6)
6 (1.3)
18 (1.7)
 
Bloodstream Infection, n (%)
   
0.638
No
1467 (97.9)
439 (97.6)
1028 (98.1)
 
Yes
31 (2.1)
11 (2.4)
20 (1.9)
 
Sepsis, n (%)
   
0.092
No
1442 (96.3)
427 (94.9)
1015 (96.9)
 
Yes
56 (3.7)
23 (5.1)
33 (3.1)
 
Septic Shock, n (%)
   
0.246
No
1472 (98.3)
439 (97.6)
1033 (98.6)
 
Yes
26 (1.7)
11 (2.4)
15 (1.4)
 
BNP, n (%)
   
0.13
No
356 (23.8)
95 (21.1)
261 (24.9)
 
Yes
1142 (76.2)
355 (78.9)
787 (75.1)
 
Frailty, n (%)
   
0.313
No
295 (19.7)
81 (18.0)
214 (20.4)
 
Yes
1203 (80.3)
369 (82.0)
834 (79.6)
 
Age, year
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
77.00 [72.00, 84.00]
0.92
Hospital Days, day
10.50 [8.00, 15.00]
10.00 [8.00, 15.00]
11.00 [8.00, 16.00]
0.669
BMI, kg/m2
23.44 [21.07, 25.93]
23.53 [21.07, 26.04]
23.44 [21.08, 25.78]
0.478
Systolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
131.00 [119.00, 144.00]
130.00 [119.00, 143.00]
0.509
Diastolic Blood Pressure, mmHg
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
76.00 [70.00, 84.00]
76.00 [68.00, 83.00]
0.3
Heart Rate, bpm
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
82.00 [72.00, 92.75]
80.00 [72.00, 93.00]
0.99
White Blood Cell, 109/L
6.84 [5.21, 9.24]
6.74 [5.11, 9.26]
6.86 [5.27, 9.20]
0.943
Lymphocyte Percentage, %
15.95 [9.40, 23.00]
15.30 [9.20, 22.10]
16.10 [9.50, 23.30]
0.123
Neutrophil Percentage, %
75.00 [65.50, 83.40]
75.65 [66.82, 83.50]
74.60 [65.18, 83.30]
0.136
Red Blood Cell, 109/L
3.99 [3.51, 4.45]
3.95 [3.49, 4.33]
4.01 [3.52, 4.47]
0.137
Hemoglobin, g/L
121.00 [106.00, 134.00]
120.00 [106.00, 133.00]
121.00 [105.00, 135.00]
0.282
MCHC, g/L
327.00 [319.00, 333.00]
327.00 [319.00, 334.00]
326.00 [320.00, 333.00]
0.606
Platelet, 109/L
174.00 [131.00, 226.75]
173.50 [132.00, 225.00]
174.00 [129.00, 228.00]
0.861
D-Dimer, ug/mL
0.90 [0.45, 2.14]
0.98 [0.49, 2.23]
0.88 [0.42, 2.11]
0.195
Alanine Aminotransferase, u/L
17.25 [12.00, 27.95]
17.75 [12.55, 28.00]
17.05 [12.00, 27.08]
0.282
Aspartate Aminotransferase, u/L
23.00 [17.00, 32.00]
23.60 [17.00, 31.90]
22.00 [17.00, 32.00]
0.359
Serum Albumin, g/L
35.20 [31.60, 38.40]
34.80 [31.89, 38.08]
35.35 [31.50, 38.50]
0.27
Total Bilirubin, umol/L
11.00 [7.70, 16.00]
10.80 [7.90, 16.00]
11.16 [7.60, 16.00]
0.982
Urea, mmol/L
7.44 [5.59, 10.76]
7.72 [5.85, 10.89]
7.35 [5.48, 10.73]
0.134
Creatinine, umol/L
85.28 [67.23, 120.65]
87.54 [69.08, 121.01]
84.45 [66.38, 120.43]
0.121
Uric Acid, umol/L
333.00 [246.00, 442.00]
348.94 [245.53, 454.75]
330.00 [246.65, 432.50]
0.226
Serum Potassium, mmol/L
3.84 [3.55, 4.17]
3.85 [3.55, 4.14]
3.84 [3.55, 4.19]
0.712
Serum Sodium, mmol/L
139.50 [136.80, 141.70]
139.40 [136.62, 141.57]
139.50 [136.90, 141.80]
0.397
Total Cholesterol, mmol/L
3.55 [2.93, 4.32]
3.52 [2.91, 4.30]
3.56 [2.94, 4.32]
0.567
Triglycerides, mmol/L
1.02 [0.77, 1.42]
1.03 [0.75, 1.41]
1.02 [0.78, 1.42]
0.912
High-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
0.93 [0.76, 1.13]
0.94 [0.75, 1.15]
0.93 [0.76, 1.12]
0.89
Low-Density Lipoprotein, mmol/L
1.94 [1.45, 2.52]
1.95 [1.47, 2.49]
1.94 [1.45, 2.54]
0.612
eGFR, ml/min
67.37 [43.70, 84.87]
64.43 [43.92, 83.73]
68.32 [43.56, 85.26]
0.196
Interleukin-6, pg/mL
16.54 [5.28, 47.33]
18.46 [5.80, 42.97]
15.02 [5.03, 50.56]
0.579
Procalcitonin, pg/mL
0.10 [0.05, 0.38]
0.11 [0.05, 0.41]
0.10 [0.05, 0.35]
0.197
C-Reactive Protein, mg/L
18.32 [5.00, 60.34]
20.86 [5.36, 61.68]
17.81 [4.86, 59.95]
0.206
LVEF, mm
61.00 [50.00, 64.00]
61.00 [51.00, 64.00]
61.00 [49.75, 64.00]
0.928
AOD, mm
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
34.00 [32.00, 37.00]
34.00 [31.00, 36.00]
0.105
LAD, mm
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
44.00 [40.00, 48.00]
44.00 [40.00, 49.00]
0.416
IVSD, mm
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
10.00 [9.00, 11.00]
0.55
LVEDD, mm
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
50.00 [46.00, 56.00]
50.00 [46.00, 55.00]
0.866
LVPWD, mm
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
9.00 [9.00, 10.00]
0.153
LVESD, mm
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
33.00 [30.00, 40.00]
0.982
Data are presented as n (%), or median (IQR). Abbreviations: NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; ARNI, Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor; ACEI, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor; ARB, Angiotensin Receptor Blocker; SGLT-2 Inhibitors, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Protein-2 Inhibitors; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; sGC Stimulators, Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators; COPD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; BMI, Body Mass Index; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate༛LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction; AOD, Aortic Diameter; LAD, Left Atrial Diameter; IVSD, Interventricular Septum Diameter; LVEDD, Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter; LVPWD, Left Ventricular Posterior Wall Diameter; LVESD, Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter.
Supplementary Table S2. The proportion of missing values in variables.
Variables
Missing cases
Missing proportion
Body Mass Index
267
17.8%
D-Dimer
90
6.0%
Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate
28
1.8%
Interleukin-6
33
2.2%
Procalcitonin
55
3.6%
C-Reactive Protein
66
4.4%
Supplementary Table S3. LASSO selection variables and collinearity analysis.
Variables
Coefficient of LASSO
VIF
Sex
0
/
Marital Status
0
/
Capacity For Action
-1.089291691
1.27905581725771
Smoking
0.006107142
1.04463748876795
Drinking
0
/
NYHA Functional Class
0.064521449
1.15457548737527
MRA
0
/
CCB
0
/
Thiazide Diuretics
-0.174604587
1.06842119376654
Cardiac Glycosides
0
/
Fatty Liver Disease
0
/
Renal Insufficiency
0
/
Cerebral Infarction
0.217238094
1.03314301978056
BNP
0
/
Age
0.084869836
1.21913769801126
BMI
0
/
Heart Rate
0
/
White Blood Cell
0
/
Lymphocyte Percentage
-0.008965525
1.2294841109636
Neutrophil Percentage
0
/
Red Blood Cell
0
/
Hemoglobin
0
/
MCHC
-0.007626577
1.05139785274571
D-Dimer
0
/
Serum Albumin
-0.025086185
1.2548677996523
Urea
0
/
Creatinine
0
/
Uric Acid
0
/
Serum Potassium
0
/
Total Cholesterol
0
/
Triglycerides
0
/
High-Density Lipoprotein
0
/
Low-Density Lipoprotein
0
/
eGFR
-0.008715936
1.23521419736874
Procalcitonin
0
/
C-Reactive Protein
0
/
LVEF
-0.005732550
1.19773998876446
Abbreviations: LASSO, Least Absolute Shrinkage And Selection Operator; VIF, Variance Inflation Factor; NYHA Functional Class, New York Heart Association Functional Class; MRA, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist; CCB, Calcium Channel Blocker; BNP, B-Type Natriuretic Peptide; BMI, body mass index; MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;eGFR, Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate; LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
Supplementary Table S4. The optimal hyperparameters of the eight machine learning models.
Model
Hyperparameter
Optimal value
LR
c
0.1
penalty
L1
solver
liblinear
class weight
balanced
random state
1
RF
n estimators
150
max depth
3
min samples leaf
3
min samples split
8
max features
sqrt
class weight
balanced
random state
1
XGBoost
colsample bytree
0.7
gamma
1
learning rate
0.01
max depth
4
n estimators
300
reg alpha
1
reg lambda
2
min child weight
20
subsample
0.7
early stopping rounds
10
class weight
balanced
random state
1
LightGBM
colsample bytree
1
learning rate
0.01
max depth
3
n estimators
50
reg alpha
0.1
reg lambda
0
min child samples
30
subsample
0.8
class weight
balanced
random state
1
SVM
c
0.1
probability
True
kernel
linear
gamma
scale
class weight
balanced
random state
1
CatBoost
iterations
100
max depth
4
learning rate
0.05
l2 leaf reg
7
verbose
False
auto class weights
Balanced
border count
64
loss function
Logloss
random strength
1
random state
1
MLP
hidden layer sizes
(50,30)
activation
tanh
solver
adam
alpha
0.0001
max iter
500
learning rate init
0.01
early_stopping
True
random state
1
NB
priors
None
var smoothing
1e-9
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron; NB, Naive Bayes.
Supplementary Table S5.The performance metrics of the eight machine learning models on the training set.
Model
Sensitivity
Specifity
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
F1-Value
LR
0.826
0.808
0.823
0.944
0.826
0.881
RF
0.8
0.883
0.817
0.964
0.8
0.874
XGBoost
0.801
0.874
0.816
0.961
0.801
0.874
LightGBM
0.76
0.874
0.783
0.959
0.76
0.848
SVM
0.779
0.874
0.799
0.96
0.779
0.86
CatBoost
0.782
0.916
0.809
0.973
0.782
0.867
NB
0.765
0.874
0.787
0.959
0.765
0.851
MLP
0.772
0.902
0.799
0.968
0.772
0.859
Abbreviations: LR, Logistic Regression; RF, Random Forest; XGBoost, eXtreme Gradient Boosting; LightGBM, Light Gradient Boosting Machines; SVM, Support Vector Machine; CatBoost, Categorical Boosting; NB, Naive Bayes; MLP, Multilayer Perceptron.
Total words in MS: 11802
Total words in Title: 15
Total words in Abstract: 350
Total Keyword count: 6
Total Images in MS: 6
Total Tables in MS: 14
Total Reference count: 39