ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Testing a Novel Design Framework for Patient-Facing Machine Learning-Based Predictions of Heart Failure Decompensation.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolicies facilitating the return of personal health data mean there is an urgent need to investigate strategies to safely present machine learning-based predictions to patients.
objectivesThe authors aimed to design and test the usability of a patient-facing smartphone application prototype displaying a predictive algorithm of cardiac decompensation to patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
methodsWe created a design framework for presenting algorithm output and implemented it in high-fidelity prototypes of a smartphone app. Prototypes showed 3 conditions with varying degrees of change in cardiac decompensation risk: significant, moderate, or little to no change. We conducted a mixed-methods usability evaluation of the prototype at a large, urban health system. English-speaking adults with implanted, actively transmitting CIEDs participated in evaluation sessions. The primary endpoint was patient objective comprehension of the algorithm's output. Secondary endpoints were risk perception, behavioral intention, and information-seeking.
resultsTwenty participants (mean age 54 years, 40% female, 65% White, and 35% Black or African American) completed the study. Comprehension of the algorithm output was high across conditions (80% to 85%), but comprehension of the algorithm's threshold varied (60% to 85%), as did comprehension of the CIED sensors contributing to the algorithm (63% to 93%). In response to the condition showing a significant change, the majority of participants would be "moderately" (40%) or "very" worried (30%) about worsening cardiac status, and 80% would call their doctor.
conclusionsThe prototype demonstrated high levels of patient comprehension, appropriate risk perception, and behavioral intention, suggesting its viability for empowering patients with actionable health insights.
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.