ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2022
Improving clinical trial efficiency using a machine learning-based risk score to enrich study populations.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Machine Learning Models in Predicting Functional Outcome of Thrombectomy for Acute Posterior Circulation Artery Occlusion: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Pooled it
- Lidocaine Delivery Systems for Preventing Postoperative Sore Throat: From Direct Spray to Soft Mist.Local and regional anesthesia · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Cardiovascular Care in Action: From Learning to Implementation in Health Systems.JACC. Advances · 2025Review
- A scoping review of artificial intelligence applications in clinical trial risk assessment.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- 2024 update in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for optimizing recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Applying Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Clinical Trials: Potential Impacts and Obstacles.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2024Article
- The role of early-phase trials and real-world evidence in drug development.Nature cardiovascular research · 2024Review
- An explainable machine learning-based phenomapping strategy for adaptive predictive enrichment in randomized clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Mortality Prediction in Patients With or Without Heart Failure Using a Machine Learning Model.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Use of HF risk score to improve trial efficiency.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPrognostic enrichment strategies can make trials more efficient, although potentially at the cost of diminishing external validity. Whether using a risk score to identify a population at increased mortality risk could improve trial efficiency is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether Machine learning Assessment of RisK and EaRly mortality in Heart Failure (MARKER-HF), a previously validated risk score, could improve clinical trial efficiency. METHODS AND
resultsMortality rates and association of MARKER-HF with all-cause death by 1 year were evaluated in four community-based heart failure (HF) and five HF clinical trial cohorts. Sample size required to assess effects of an investigational therapy on mortality was calculated assuming varying underlying MARKER-HF risk and proposed treatment effect profiles. Patients from community-based HF cohorts (n = 11 297) had higher observed mortality and MARKER-HF scores than did clinical trial patients (n = 13 165) with HF with either reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). MARKER-HF score was strongly associated with risk of 1-year mortality both in the community (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.52) and clinical trial cohorts with HFrEF (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.30-1.54), and HFpEF (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.53-1.98), per 0.1 increase in MARKER-HF. Using MARKER-HF to identify patients for a hypothetical clinical trial assessing mortality reduction with an intervention, enabled a reduction in sample size required to show benefit.
conclusionUsing a reliable predictor of mortality such as MARKER-HF to enrich clinical trial populations provides a potential strategy to improve efficiency by requiring a smaller sample size to demonstrate a clinical benefit.
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.