ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024
Predicting multifaceted risks using machine learning in atrial fibrillation: insights from GLORIA-AF study.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- DOAC Score Versus HAS-BLED and ORBIT for Predicting Bleeding Events in Atrial Fibrillation on Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in cardiology in the current era: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting Bleeding Risk in Anticoagulated Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: A Comparative Evidence Synthesis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- How Far Can Time-Series Models Go in Capturing Dynamic Stroke Risk Post Atrial Fibrillation?JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Explainable artificial intelligence for stroke risk stratification in atrial fibrillation.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Review
- Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for prognosis in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Beyond Clinical Factors: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence and Multimodal Cardiac Imaging to Predict Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post-Catheter Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of ischaemic stroke and death. While anticoagulants are effective at reducing these risks, they increase the risk of bleeding. Current clinical risk scores only perform modestly in predicting adverse outcomes, especially for the outcome of death. We aimed to test the multi-label gradient boosting decision tree (ML-GBDT) model in predicting risks for adverse outcomes in a prospective global AF registry. Methods and results: We studied patients from phase II/III of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Anti-Thrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation registry between 2011 and 2020. The outcomes were all-cause death, ischaemic stroke, and major bleeding within 1 year following the AF. We trained the ML-GBDT model and compared its discrimination with the clinical scores in predicting patient outcomes. A total of 25 656 patients were included [mean age 70.3 years (SD 10.3); 44.8% female]. Within 1 year after AF, ischaemic stroke occurred in 215 (0.8%), major bleeding in 405 (1.6%), and death in 897 (3.5%) patients. Our model achieved an optimized area under the curve in predicting death (0.785, 95% CI: 0.757-0.813) compared with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.747, Conclusion: The ML-GBDT model outperformed clinical risk scores in predicting the risks in patients with AF. This approach could be used as a single multifaceted holistic tool to optimize patient risk assessment and mitigate adverse outcomes when managing AF.
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.