ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Deep learning approach for analyzing chest x-rays to predict cardiac events in heart failure.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Discriminating HFrEF vs HFpEF from chest radiographs: Mitigating demographic performance gaps via augmentation and multimodal fusion.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Neural Computing Advancements in Cardiac Imaging: A Review of Deep Learning Approaches for Heart Disease Diagnosis.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Integrating multimodal intelligence in heart failure: AI-driven risk prediction, precision diagnosis, phenotyping, personalized treatment, and prognosis.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Clinics: Enhancing Cardiology Practice.JMA journal · 2025Review
- Utility of osteoporosis screening based on estimation of bone mineral density using bidirectional chest radiographs with deep learning models.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A deep learning (DL) model based on a chest x-ray was reported to predict elevated pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) as heart failure (HF). Objectives: The aim of this study was to (1) investigate the role of probability of elevated PAWP for the prediction of clinical outcomes in association with other parameters, and (2) to evaluate whether probability of elevated PAWP based on DL added prognostic information to other conventional clinical prognostic factors in HF. Methods: We evaluated 192 patients hospitalized with HF. We used a previously developed AI model to predict HF and calculated probability of elevated PAWP. Readmission following HF and cardiac mortality were the primary endpoints. Results: Probability of elevated PAWP was associated with diastolic function by echocardiography. During a median follow-up period of 58 months, 57 individuals either died or were readmitted. Probability of elevated PAWP appeared to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. After adjustment for readmission score and laboratory data in a Cox proportional-hazards model, probability of elevated PAWP at pre-discharge was associated with event free survival, independent of elevated left atrial pressure (LAP) based on echocardiographic guidelines ( Conclusions: This study showed the potential of using a DL model on a chest x-ray to predict PAWP and its ability to add prognostic information to other conventional clinical prognostic factors in HF. The results may help to enhance the accuracy of prediction models used to evaluate the risk of clinical outcomes in HF, potentially resulting in more informed clinical decision-making and better care for patients.
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.