ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Predictors of 1-Year Mortality Among Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccepted heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) prognostic scores rely on limited variables and linear assumptions that are likely to miss complex risk patterns.
objectivesThe objectives of the study were to develop, compare, and internally validate prediction models for 1-year all-cause mortality after first hospitalization for decompensated HF with preserved EF.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from a large academic health system, including adults with EF ≥50% admitted for a first-time HF exacerbation. Variables spanned demographics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, echocardiographic variables, medications, and outcomes. Data were split into training (80%) and test (20%) sets with stratification by outcome. Missing values were handled with multiple imputation by chained equations. Two tree-based classifiers (Extreme Gradient Boosting and Light Gradient Boosting) were tuned with cross-validation and evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration. Time-to-event models included Cox proportional hazards, random survival forest (RSF), and gradient boosting survival (GBS) with concordance index and calibration assessment. Global and local (patient-level) explainability was extracted from each model, with cross-model predictor ranking and comparison.
resultsWe analyzed 7,840 admissions; the mean age was 78 years with 55.6% women. One-year mortality was 31.5%. Test-set AUROC was 0.751 (95% CI: 0.727-0.775) for Extreme Gradient Boosting and 0.749 for (95% CI: 0.721-0.776) Light Gradient Boosting with acceptable calibration. GBS achieved the highest concordance index (0.718; 95% CI: 0.696-0.740), followed by RSF (0.711; 95% CI: 0.690-0.734) and Cox (0.704; 95% CI: 0.680-0.728). The 12-month time-dependent AUROCs for survival models were GBS 0.759 (95% CI: 0.716-0.799), RSF: 0.750 (95% CI 0.708-0.789), and Cox: 0.735 (95% CI 0.692-0.777). Lower albumin, older age, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, renal dysfunction, and lower hemoglobin were the most consistent risk signals.
conclusionsOur transparent risk tool using routinely available admission data appears feasible, allowing for patient-level, precision health risk assessment.
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.