↓ Skip to main content

A Bayesian Model to Predict Right Ventricular Failure Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A Bayesian Model to Predict Right Ventricular Failure Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.04.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study investigates the use of a Bayesian statistical model to address the limited predictive capacity of existing risk scores derived from multivariate analyses. This is based on the hypothesis that it is necessary to consider the interrelationships and conditional probabilities among independent variables to achieve sufficient statistical accuracy. Right ventricular failure (RVF) continues to be a major adverse event following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation METHODS: Data used for this study were derived from 10,909 adult patients from the Inter-Agency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) who had a primary LVAD implanted between December 2006 and March 2014. An initial set of 176 pre-implantation variables were considered. RVF post-implant was categorized as acute (<48 h), early (48 h to 14 daysays), and late (>14 daysays) in onset. For each of these endpoints, a separate tree-augmented naïve Bayes model was constructed using the most predictive variables employing an open source Bayesian inference engine. The acute RVF model consisted of 33 variables including systolic pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), white blood cell count, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac index, sodium levels, and lymphocyte percentage. The early RVF model consisted of 34 variables, including systolic PAP, pre-albumin, lactate dehydrogenase level, INTERMACS profile, right ventricular ejection fraction, pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, age, heart rate, tricuspid regurgitation, and body mass index. The late RVF model included 33 variables and was predicted mostly by peripheral vascular resistance, model for end-stage liver disease score, albumin level, lymphocyte percentage, and mean and diastolic PAP. The accuracy of all Bayesian models was between 91% and 97%, with an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve between 0.83 and 0.90, sensitivity of 90%, and specificity between 98% and 99%, significantly outperforming previously published risk scores. A Bayesian prognostic model of RVF based on the large, multicenter INTERMACS registry provided highly accurate predictions of acute, early, and late RVF on the basis of pre-operative variables. These models may facilitate clinical decision making while screening candidates for LVAD therapy.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 20%
Other 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 36 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 38%
Engineering 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2025.
All research outputs
#4,900,509
of 28,346,851 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#1,078
of 1,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,350
of 321,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#18
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,346,851 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.