ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Identification and Validation of an Explainable Predictive Model For Heart Failure in Patients With Hypertension.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome affecting over 60 million individuals globally. Patients with hypertension are particularly susceptible to developing HF. Therefore, timely identification and predictive assessment of HF risk have significant clinical implications in this population. Thus, this study aimed to develop a new interpretable machine learning (ML) model for HF prediction. Methods: Using data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a random under-sampling technique was applied to address class imbalance in the target variable, achieving a 1:1 ratio between positive and negative samples. By randomly matching 162 individuals without HF events to those with events, a balanced dataset comprising 324 participants was constructed. The test set comprised 40% of the total dataset to ensure a robust evaluation of model performance. Seven ML algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), adaptive boosting (Adaboost), naïve Bayes (NB), logistic regression (LR), gradient boosting machine (GBM), random forest (RF), and multilayer perceptron (MLP), were employed to construct the predictive models. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), decision curve analysis (DCA), calibration curves, and other metrics. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) approach was employed to rank feature significance and provide interpretability for the final model. Results: Over a median follow-up of 3.88years, 162 patients (1.8%) developed incident HF. Among the seven ML models, GBM demonstrated the best performance. A total of 14 features were retained after the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) selection. The final model exhibited robust predictive capability for identifying HF risk, with an overall accuracy of 0.731, a precision of 0.770, and an AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 0.763 (0.676-0.840). Conclusion: The GBM-based explainable prediction model demonstrated robust performance in predicting HF risk among patients with hypertension.
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.