SynthesisBMC medicine2021
Machine learning for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and atrial fibrillation: systematic review of validity and clinical utility.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Opportunities and Challenges of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction for Primary Prevention Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in the risk prediction models of cardiovascular disease and development of an independent validation screening tool: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Discovering Distinct Phenotypical Clusters in Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: a Systematic Review.Current heart failure reports · 2023Pooled it
- Machine-learning versus traditional approaches for atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk prognostication in primary prevention cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2023Pooled it
- Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Computational Models Used to Predict Cardiovascular Complications in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Implementation of Machine Learning in Heart Failure Trials.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning for predicting coronary heart disease risk in patients with carotid atherosclerosis: A retrospective study with SHAP and decision curve analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- A systematic review of multimodal machine learning models for heart failure classification and prognosis prediction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Unsupervised clustering identifies distinct phenotypes in acute myocardial infarction: insights from the FAST-MI 2015 registry.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the atherogenic index of plasma for early-stage diabetic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study using supervised machine learning.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the ABC pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation: A machine learning cluster analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based risk prediction model for pertussis in children: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in neurocardiology: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Machine learning approaches for risk prediction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Machine learning based prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk using electronic health records data: systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Review
- Review
- Enhancing the Understanding of Abdominal Trauma During the COVID-19 Pandemic Through Co-Occurrence Analysis and Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Interpretable Clinical Decision-Making Application for Etiological Diagnosis of Ventricular Tachycardia Based on Machine Learning.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of machine learning in predicting outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.AsiaIntervention · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) is increasingly used in research for subtype definition and risk prediction, particularly in cardiovascular diseases. No existing ML models are routinely used for cardiovascular disease management, and their phase of clinical utility is unknown, partly due to a lack of clear criteria. We evaluated ML for subtype definition and risk prediction in heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsFor ML studies of subtype definition and risk prediction, we conducted a systematic review in HF, ACS and AF, using PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 2000 until December 2019. By adapting published criteria for diagnostic and prognostic studies, we developed a seven-domain, ML-specific checklist.
resultsOf 5918 studies identified, 97 were included. Across studies for subtype definition (n = 40) and risk prediction (n = 57), there was variation in data source, population size (median 606 and median 6769), clinical setting (outpatient, inpatient, different departments), number of covariates (median 19 and median 48) and ML methods. All studies were single disease, most were North American (n = 61/97) and only 14 studies combined definition and risk prediction. Subtype definition and risk prediction studies respectively had limitations in development (e.g. 15.0% and 78.9% of studies related to patient benefit; 15.0% and 15.8% had low patient selection bias), validation (12.5% and 5.3% externally validated) and impact (32.5% and 91.2% improved outcome prediction; no effectiveness or cost-effectiveness evaluations).
conclusionsStudies of ML in HF, ACS and AF are limited by number and type of included covariates, ML methods, population size, country, clinical setting and focus on single diseases, not overlap or multimorbidity. Clinical utility and implementation rely on improvements in development, validation and impact, facilitated by simple checklists. We provide clear steps prior to safe implementation of machine learning in clinical practice for cardiovascular diseases and other disease areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.