ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Risk stratification and survival prediction in heart failure: from grades to scores.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) continues to pose a significant global health burden, necessitating accurate prognostic tools to guide patient management. This mini-review presents grading systems, frailty scales, and scoring models, followed by challenges and future directions. We traces the evolution of stratification and prognostic assessments in HF, beginning with the foundational NYHA functional classification and progressing to the advanced prognostic scores currently in use. We examine the historical significance and clinical relevance of NYHA grades, which have long been pivotal in evaluating HF severity. The review then shifts focus to contemporary prognostic scores, including the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS), and emerging tools leveraging machine learning (ML) and big data. We explore specific challenges encountered in current clinical practice and outline future directions. By highlighting the strengths and limitations of these tools, this mini-review aims to provides a critical appraisal of stratification and scoring models for HF to inform their optimal application in clinical practice, ultimately enhancing patient care and outcomes in HF.
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.