ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A transformer-based survival model for prediction of all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure: a multi-cohort study.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: An Up-to-Date Narrative Review on the Emerging Role of Lipid Profile-Based Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Risk Stratification in Cardiovascular Medicine for Prognostic Assessment and Therapeutic Decision-Making: From Atrial Fibrillation to the Broader Disease Spectrum.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Big Data and Trustworthy AI for Heart Failure: A Review.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- The Evolving Utility of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools for the Detection of Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: From Potential to Implementation.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) patients have complex health profiles that existing risk models fail to capture. We developed TRisk, a Transformer-based artificial intelligence survival model for predicting mortality using routine electronic health records (EHR) in HF patients. Using UK data from 403,534 HF patients across 1418 English general practices, we trained and validated TRisk and compared it against MAGGIC-EHR, the MAGGIC model adapted for use on routine EHR by substituting variables (e.g. left-ventricular ejection fraction) that are not routinely available. External validation was conducted on 21,767 patients from USA hospitals. In the UK cohort, TRisk achieved a concordance index (C-index): 0.845 (95% CI: 0.841, 0.849), outperforming MAGGIC-EHR (C-index: 0.728 [0.723, 0.733]) for 36-month mortality prediction. In subgroup analyses, TRisk demonstrated less variability in predictive performance by sex, age, and baseline characteristics compared to MAGGIC-EHR, suggesting less biased modelling. Evaluating TRisk in USA data via transfer learning yielded a C-index of 0.802 (0.789, 0.816). Explainability analysis revealed TRisk captured established risk factors while identifying underappreciated ones, particularly cancers and hepatic failure, with cancers maintaining prognostic utility even a decade before baseline. TRisk provides more accurate, well-calibrated mortality prediction using routine data across international healthcare settings, demonstrating potential for improved risk stratification in patients with HF.
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.