ArticleOpen heart2026
Development and validation of diagnostic and prognostic models for heart failure in unstable angina patients.
Article in Open heart, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop diagnostic models to predict initial heart failure (HF) hospitalisation in patients with unstable angina (UA) and prognostic models to predict rehospitalisation for recurrent or new-onset HF after discharge, aiming to enhance early identification and patient care strategies.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed data from 12 857 acute coronary syndrome patients (January 2015 to March 2023). After screening, 7092 UA patients were included and randomly divided into a training cohort (4964) and a validation cohort (2128). Logistic regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression identified risk factors. Diagnostic models were developed and evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves. Using the same predictors, prognostic models predicted rehospitalisation at 1, 2 and 6 months postdischarge.
resultsThe lambda.1se criterion in LASSO regression identified three key risk factors: left ventricular diameter, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. The diagnostic model's area under the curve (AUC) was 0.938 (95% CI 0.909 to 0.955) in the training cohort and 0.931 (95% CI 0.901 to 0.956) in the validation cohort, showing consistent and reliable performance. Prognostic models for 1, 2 and 6 months postdischarge had AUC values of 0.770, 0.794 and 0.751, respectively, supporting their utility in prognostic evaluations.
conclusionThe UA diagnostic and prognostic HF model was developed and validated. These models can quickly identify high-risk patients, enabling prompt and tailored interventions.
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.