Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41357488›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025

Prediction models and risk scores in different types of heart failure: a review.

Yue Wei, Siyu Liu, Yunying Mu, Xiaoyu Liang, Ziyi Chen, Yongcheng Liu, Guoju Dong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Diagnostic Tests for Stage B Heart Failure.Current cardiology reports · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yue WeiDepartment of Cardiovascular Internal Medicine, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Siyu LiuDepartment of Cardiovascular Internal Medicine, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yunying MuDepartment of Cardiovascular Internal Medicine, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaoyu LiangNational Resource Center for Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Ziyi ChenNational Resource Center for Chinese Materia Medica, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yongcheng LiuDepartment of Cardiovascular Internal Medicine, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Guoju DongDepartment of Cardiovascular Internal Medicine, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of global disease burden and mortality. Accurate prognosis assessment is critical for reducing the risk of adverse events. In recent years, numerous predictive models have been developed for different HF subtypes. However, the quality of existing models varies considerably, and there remains a lack of consensus on models suitable for widespread clinical application. This study systematically reviews the current landscape of HF prediction models, analyzes their strengths and limitations, and provides guidance for future research. Methods: This review systematically retrieved studies on prognostic prediction models for HF from databases including PubMed and Embase, with a search period spanning from the inception of each database to 19 September 2025. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool, and the performance of the prediction models was evaluated through metrics such as the C-index and calibration. Results: A total of 46 prediction models from 38 studies were included. According to target population classification, 14 models were developed for predicting outcomes in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction, nine models were applicable to HF patients with preserved ejection fraction, one model targeted HF patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and the remaining 22 were designed for all HF patients regardless of subtype. The risk of bias assessment showed that 10 models had a high risk of bias, 21 models demonstrated an unclear risk of bias, and 15 models exhibited a low risk of bias. The study systematically summarized each model's study cohort, modeling methodology, predictors, outcomes, prediction performance, presentation format, as well as strengths and limitations. Conclusion: Refining the methodological processes of model construction-including optimizing study cohort selection, updating predictor screening (such as incorporating novel biomarkers, imaging indicators, and multi-omics data), improving modeling strategies, and enhancing model presentation-will contribute to the development of more accurate and clinically applicable prediction models. Such advancements hold significant potential for improving clinical outcomes in patients across all types of HF. This review provides a substantive reference for future research in this field.

Indexed as

heart failureheart failure with mildly reduced ejection fractionheart failure with preserved ejection fractionheart failure with reduced ejection fractionprediction model

Identifiers

PMID41357488
PMCPMC12678391

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.