ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
A systematic review of multimodal machine learning models for heart failure classification and prognosis prediction.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a global medical condition marked by substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs with complex pathophysiology and variation in definitions. Machine learning (ML) has emerged as a promising approach to improve HF classification and risk prediction by leveraging various data sources. This study aims to present the current state-of-the-art multimodal ML models for HF classification and prognosis prediction, focusing on their modalities, performance, and clinical utility. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420250654631), this review searched across four electronic databases (November 2014 - November 2024) and identified 284 unique records, of which 15 were included in the final synthesis. The quality of the studies was evaluated using QUADAS-2 and QUAPAS. Results: Our results showed that the two most common multimodal combinations were tabular-image and tabular-text. The algorithms of the models included convolutional neural networks for image data, transformer-based approaches for text, with well-known fused techniques (early, middle, late fusion). Overall, multimodal models demonstrated superior performance compared to unimodal approaches, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values frequently exceeding 80% and reaching as high as 98.2%. Conclusion: Despite promising results, challenges include inconsistent reporting of performance metrics and their 95% confidence intervals, limited external validation, a near absence of prospective studies, and a deficiency in integrating genetic or 'omics' information with conventional data. These challenges must be addressed to promote clinical adoption and future research. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250654631, identifier CRD420250654631.
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.