ArticleESC heart failure2021
Machine learning-based risk prediction of malignant arrhythmia in hospitalized patients with heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-time ECG-based detection of cardiovascular diseases using balanced and interpretable machine learning approaches.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics integration identifies immunological predictors and mechanistic insights in autoimmune encephalitis.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Hybrid CNN-Transformer-WOA model with XGBoost-SHAP feature selection for arrhythmia risk prediction in acute myocardial infarction patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- State of the Art of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Electrophysiology in 2025: A Scientific Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), and the ESC Working Group on E-Cardiology.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Constructing an early warning model for elderly sepsis patients based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning in the prevention of heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for online predicting the risk of in heart failure: based on the routine blood test and their derived parameters.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Genetics of Sudden Cardiac Arrest: Overview of Genetic Risk Factors and Aetiologies.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Review
- Nomogram Model to Predict Acute Kidney Injury in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.Artificial intelligence review · 2024Article
- Development and comparison of machine learning-based models for predicting heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Death.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2023Review
- Machine learning-based in-hospital mortality risk prediction tool for intensive care unit patients with heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Editorial: Advances and challenges in remote monitoring of patients with heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Machine learning-based risk prediction of malignant arrhythmia in hospitalized patients with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Sudden cardiac arrest: Limitations in risk-stratification and treatment, and the potential for digital technologies and artificial intelligence to improve prediction and outcomes.Progress in cardiovascular diseasesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPredicting the risk of malignant arrhythmias (MA) in hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) is challenging. Machine learning (ML) can handle a large volume of complex data more effectively than traditional statistical methods. This study explored the feasibility of ML methods for predicting the risk of MA in hospitalized HF patients. METHODS AND
resultsWe evaluated the baseline data and MA events of 2794 hospitalized HF patients in the HF cohort in Anhui Province and randomly divided the study population into training and validation sets in a 7:3 ratio. The Lasso-logistic regression, multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), classification and regression tree (CART), random forest (RF), and eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithms were used to construct risk prediction models in the training set, and model performance was verified in the validation set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Brier score were employed to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the model, respectively. Clinical utility of the Lasso-logistic regression model was analysed using decision curve analysis (DCA). The median (Q1, Q3) age of the study population was 70 (61, 77) years, and 39.5% were female. MA events occurred in 117 patients (4.2%) during hospitalization. In the training set (n = 1964), the AUC of the XGBoost model was 0.998 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.997-1.000], which was higher than the other models (all P < 0.001). In the validation set (n = 830), there was no significant difference in AUC of Lasso-logistic model 1 [AUC: 0.867 (95% CI 0.819-0.915)], Lasso-logistic model 2 [AUC: 0.828 (95% CI 0.764-0.892)], MARS model [AUC: 0.852 (95% CI 0.793-0.910)], RF model [AUC: 0.804 (95% CI 0.726-0.881)], and XGBoost model [AUC: 0.864 (95% CI 0.810-0.918); all P > 0.05], which were higher than that of CART model [AUC: 0.743 (95% CI 0.661-0.824); all P < 0.05]. Brier scores for all prediction models were less than 0.05. DCA results showed that the Lasso-logistic model had a net clinical benefit. Oral antiarrhythmic drug, left bundle branch block, serum magnesium, d-dimer, and random blood glucose were significant predictors in half or more of the models.
conclusionsThe current study findings suggest that ML models based on the Lasso-logistic regression, MARS, RF, and XGBoost algorithms can effectively predict the risk of MA in hospitalized HF patients. The Lasso-logistic model had better clinical interpretability and ease of use than the other models.
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.