ReviewEXCLI journal2022
Evaluating the adverse outcome of subtypes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction defined by machine learning: A systematic review focused on defining high risk phenogroups.
Review in EXCLI journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- C-Reactive Protein, Interleukin-6, Trimethylamine-N-Oxide, Syndecan-1, Nitric Oxide, and Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor-1 in Heart Failure with Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: a Meta-Analysis.Current heart failure reports · 2023Pooled it
- Interleukin-17, Interleukin-18, T Regulatory Cells, and T-Helper 17 (Th17) Cells Play a Role in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiology research and practice · 2026Review
- Machine-Learning-Driven Phenotyping in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Current Approaches and Future Directions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Heterogeneity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review of Phenotypic Classifications and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evolving role of myocardial fibrosis in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Epicardial Fat in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Compared with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Epigenetics in Heart Failure: Role of DNA Methylation in Potential Pathways Leading to Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Machine learning for atrial fibrillation risk prediction in patients with sleep apnea and coronary artery disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to distinguish clinically meaningful subtypes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has recently been examined by machine learning techniques but studies appear to have produced discordant results. The objective of this study is to synthesize the types of HFpEF by examining their features and relating them to phenotypes with adverse prognosis. A systematic search was conducted using the search terms "Diastolic Heart Failure" OR "heart failure with preserved ejection fraction" OR "heart failure with normal ejection fraction" OR "HFpEF" AND "machine learning" OR "artificial intelligence" OR 'computational biology'. Ten studies were identified and they varied in their prevalence of ten clinical variables: age, sex, body mass index (BMI) or obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or symptom severity (NYHA class or BNP). The clinical findings associated with the different phenotypes in > 85 % of studies were age, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and worse symptoms severity; an adverse outcome was in 65 % to 85 % of studies identified diabetes mellitus and female sex and in less than 65 % of studies was body mass index or obesity, and coronary artery disease. COPD was a relevant factor in only 33 % of studies. Adverse clinical outcome - death or admission to hospital (for heart failure) defined phenogroups with the worst outcome. Combining the 4 studies that calculated the MAGGIC score showed a significant (p<0.05) linear relationship between MAGGIC score and outcome, using the one-year event rate. A new score based on strength of the evidence of the HFpEF studies analyzed here, using 9 variables (eliminating COPD), showed a significant (p<0.009) linear relationship with one-year event rate. Three studies examined biomarkers in detail and the ones most prominently related to outcome or consistently found in the studies were GDF15, FABP4, FGF23, sST2, renin and TNF. The dominant factors that identified phenotypes of HFpEF with adverse outcome were hypertension, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and worse symptoms severity. A new simplified score, based on clinical factors, was proposed to assess prognosis in HFpEF. Several biomarkers were consistently elevated in phenogroups with adverse outcomes and may indicate the underlying mechanism or pathophysiology specific for phenotypes with an adverse prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.