ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Multimodal data integration to predict atrial fibrillation.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Applied to Electrocardiograms Recorded in Sinus Rhythm for Detection and Prediction of Atrial Fibrillation: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Extracting Genetically-Imputed Causal Features From ECG Data.Statistical analysis and data mining · 2025Article
- Identifying High-Risk Atrial Fibrillation in Diabetes: Evidence from Nomogram and Plasma Metabolomics Analysis.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Many studies have utilized data sources such as clinical variables, polygenic risk scores, electrocardiogram (ECG), and plasma proteins to predict the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have integrated all four sources from a single study to comprehensively assess AF prediction. Methods and results: We included 8374 (Visit 3, 1993-95) and 3730 (Visit 5, 2011-13) participants from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study to predict incident AF and prevalent (but covert) AF. We constructed a (i) clinical risk score using CHARGE-AF clinical variables, (ii) polygenic risk score using pre-determined weights, (iii) protein risk score using regularized logistic regression, and (iv) ECG risk score from a convolutional neural network. Risk prediction performance was measured using regularized logistic regression. After a median follow-up of 15.1 years, 1910 AF events occurred since Visit 3 and 229 participants had prevalent AF at Visit 5. The area under curve (AUC) improved from 0.660 to 0.752 (95% CI, 0.741-0.763) and from 0.737 to 0.854 (95% CI, 0.828-0.880) after addition of the polygenic risk score to the CHARGE-AF clinical variables for predicting incident and prevalent AF, respectively. Further addition of ECG and protein risk scores improved the AUC to 0.763 (95% CI, 0.753-0.772) and 0.875 (95% CI, 0.851-0.899) for predicting incident and prevalent AF, respectively. Conclusion: A combination of clinical and polygenic risk scores was the most effective and parsimonious approach to predicting AF. Further addition of an ECG risk score or protein risk score provided only modest incremental improvement for predicting AF.
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.