SynthesisClinical cardiology2025
Predictive Value of Machine Learning for the Risk of In-Hospital Death in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease Through Integrated Machine Learning Models Combining Clinical and Demographic Characteristics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe efficiency of machine learning (ML) based predictive models in predicting in-hospital mortality for heart failure (HF) patients is a topic of debate. In this context, this study's objective is to conduct a meta-analysis to compare and assess existing prognostic models designed for predicting in-hospital mortality in HF patients.
methodsA systematic search of databases was conducted, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2023. To ensure comprehensiveness, we performed an additional search in June 2023. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess the validity and reliability of ML models.
resultsOur analysis incorporated 28 studies involving a total of 106 predictive models based on 14 different ML techniques. In the training data set, these models showed a combined C-index of 0.781, sensitivity of 0.56, and specificity of 0.94. In the validation data set, the models exhibited a combined C-index of 0.758, sensitivity of 0.57, and specificity of 0.84. Logistic regression (LR) was the most frequently used ML algorithm. LR models in the training set had a combined C-index of 0.795, sensitivity of 0.63, and specificity of 0.85, and these measures for LR models in the validation set were 0.751, 0.66, and 0.79, respectively.
conclusionsOur study indicates that although ML is increasingly being leveraged to predict in-hospital mortality for HF patients, the predictive performance remains suboptimal. Although these models have relatively high C-index and specificity, their ability to predict positive events is limited, as indicated by their low sensitivity.
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.