Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40189534›Full record

SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025

Evaluation of machine learning methods for prediction of heart failure mortality and readmission: meta-analysis.

Hamed Hajishah, Danial Kazemi, Ehsan Safaee, Mohammad Javad Amini, Maral Peisepar, Mohammad Mahdi Tanhapour, Arian Tavasol

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hamed HajishahStudent Research Committee, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Danial KazemiStudent Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Ehsan SafaeeStudent Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Javad AminiStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
Maral PeiseparSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Mahdi TanhapourStudent Research Committee, Tehran Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Arian TavasolStudent Research Committee, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ariantavasol1378@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure (HF) impacts nearly 6 million individuals in the U.S., with a projected 46% increase by 2030, is creating significant healthcare burdens. Predictive models, particularly machine learning (ML)-based models, offer promising solutions to identify patients at greater risk of adverse outcomes, such as mortality and hospital readmission. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of ML models in predicting HF-related outcomes, with a focus on their potential to improve patient care and clinical decision-making. We aim to assess how effectively machine learning models predict mortality and readmission in heart failure patients to improve clinical outcomes.

methodThe study followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023481167). We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using specific keywords related to heart failure, machine learning, mortality and readmission. Extracted data focused on study characteristics, machine learning details, and outcomes, with AUC or c-index used as the primary outcomes for pooling analysis. The PROBAST tool was used to assess bias risk, evaluating models based on participants, predictors, outcomes, and statistical analysis. The meta-analysis pooled AUCs for different machine learning models predicting mortality and readmission. Prediction accuracy data was categorized by timeframes, with high heterogeneity determined by an I² value above 50%, leading to a random-effects model when applicable. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's and Begg's tests, with a p-value below 0.05 considered significant

resultA total of 4,505 studies were identified, and after screening, 64 were included in the final analysis, covering 943,941 patients. Of these, 40 studies focused on mortality, 17 on readmission, and 7 on both outcomes. In total, 346 machine learning models were evaluated, with the most common algorithms being random forest, logistic regression, and gradient boosting. The neural network model achieved the highest overall AUC for mortality prediction (0.808), while the support vector machine performed best for readmission prediction (AUC 0.733). The analysis revealed a significant risk of bias, primarily due to reliance on retrospective data and inadequate sample size justification.

conclusionIn conclusion, this review emphasizes the strong potential of ML models in predicting HF readmission and mortality. ML algorithms show promise in improving prognostic accuracy and enabling personalized patient care. However, challenges like model interpretability, generalizability, and clinical integration persist. Overcoming these requires refined ML techniques and a robust regulatory framework to enhance HF outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHeart FailureMachine LearningPatient ReadmissionAgedFemaleHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsHeart failureMachine learningMeta-analysisMortalityReadmission

Identifiers

PMID40189534
PMCPMC11974104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.