ArticleOpen heart2026
Longitudinal phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction identifies early- and end-stage disease states.
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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) phenotypes have been characterised as static entities in trial populations yet their temporal dynamics remain unexplored in routine clinical practice. We aimed to identify HFpEF phenogroups from real-world electronic health records (EHRs), characterise their longitudinal stability and determine whether phenogroup trajectories were associated with differences in mortality.
methodsA natural language processing (NLP) pipeline identified HFpEF cases from multisite EHRs (2010-2022). Latent class analysis (LCA) defined baseline phenogroups and annual supervised random forest (RF) classification using time-updated values of the same baseline LCA variables tracked individual transitions over five years. Competing risks regression quantified transition versus death probabilities. Time-varying Cox models assessed mortality risk associated with current (vs baseline) phenogroup status. Phenogroups were independently re-derived by LCA in an external cohort and compared with RF predictions.
resultsAmong 2223 patients (60% female, median age 75 years (IQR 63-83); left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 60.1%; follow-up 4.0 years (IQR 2.2-6.1), we identified four phenogroups: young-low comorbidity (22%), obesity-predominant (24%), elderly atrial dysfunction (32%) and cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (23%). Young-low comorbidity had the highest transition probability (47.7%), while cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic and elderly-atrial dysfunction were highly stable (3.2% and 12.1% transitioned, respectively). Within young-low comorbidity, those who transitioned had greater baseline cardiac abnormalities, including higher E/e', left ventricle mass and wall thickness. Adjusted mortality risk was highest in cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.92, p<0.001); current phenogroup status discriminated mortality risk modestly better than baseline classification alone (C-index 0.659 vs 0.648). In an independent external cohort (n=3349), RF predictions agreed strongly with independently derived LCA phenogroup labels (C-statistics 0.891-0.953).
conclusionLongitudinal NLP-based phenotyping of real-world EHRs identified four reproducible HFpEF phenogroups with distinct trajectories, distinguishing an early progressive disease state from stable advanced phenotypes. Earlier HFpEF detection using artificial intelligence-driven EHR tools could facilitate phenotype-targeted treatment of patients at potentially modifiable stages.
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.