Evidence mapPaperPMID 42017562Full record

ReviewJACC. CardioOncology2026

Risk Prediction in Cardio-Oncology: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review.

Jonathan Sen, Eitan Amir, Peter C Austin, Thomas H Marwick, Chris McIntosh, Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan, Husam Abdel-Qadir

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JACC. CardioOncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jonathan SenTed Rogers Program for Cardiotoxicity Prevention and the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne and Menzies Institute for Medical Research, Hobart, Australia.
Eitan AmirPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter C AustinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas H MarwickBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne and Menzies Institute for Medical Research, Hobart, Australia.
Chris McIntoshTed Rogers Program for Cardiotoxicity Prevention and the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paaladinesh ThavendiranathanTed Rogers Program for Cardiotoxicity Prevention and the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Husam Abdel-QadirTed Rogers Program for Cardiotoxicity Prevention and the Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: h.abdel.qadir@utoronto.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction models can guide prevention, monitoring, and treatment decisions in cardio-oncology, but their development requires careful attention to methodological challenges unique to cardiovascular disease arising in the context of cancer. In this state-of-the-art review, the authors use case scenarios to illustrate how prediction objectives, index dates, and time horizons must align with specific clinical decisions across the cancer trajectory. They summarize key considerations for data source selection, population definition, sample size, and variable selection and discuss challenges in incorporating treatment data, including immortal time bias and confounding by indication. The authors review regression-based, competing risk, dynamic, and machine learning approaches for model development, along with best practices for evaluating discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Finally, they outline principles for implementation, including workflow integration, transparency, and ongoing model updating. Together, these concepts provide a framework to support the development and adoption of rigorous, clinically meaningful risk prediction tools tailored to cardio-oncology.

Indexed as

clinical implementationcompeting risksepidemiologymachine learningmodel validationoutcomesprognostic modelsrisk predictiontreatment exposuretreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID42017562
PMCPMC13133652

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.