SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Evaluation of machine learning methods for prediction of heart failure mortality and readmission: meta-analysis.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of machine learning algorithms for mortality risk, readmission and phenotype prediction in patients with heart failure: exploring key data sources, input variables and outcomes.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization using interpretable machine learning: evidence from a 20-year population-based rural registry.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Association Between Discharge Destination and Excess Length of Stay in Heart Failure-Related Admissions: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Observational
- Smart Technology, Fragile Hearts: Navigating AI's Challenges and Limitations in Heart Failure Management.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Machine Learning Models Incorporating Nursing Care Needs to Predict 180-Day Prognosis in Patients With Heart Failure: Validation With Discrimination and Calibration Analyses.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Predicting adverse outcomes in dilated cardiomyopathy using 3D echocardiography: penalised Cox regression versus machine learning.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Development and Interpretation of Machine Learning Models for Short-Term Functional Recovery and 90-Day Readmission in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based identification of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction using routine laboratory indicators.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Special Issue "Molecular Advances in Heart Disease: Genomics, Proteomics, and Bioinformatics of Heart Research".International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Molecular Diagnostics in Heart Failure: From Biomarkers to Personalized Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.