ArticleESC heart failure2025
A two-phase approach to identifying HFpEF in heart failure patients: Risk score evaluation and decision tree development.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengths and limitations of HFpEF probability scores in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- From Single Genes to Systemic Networks: Transcriptomic Insights into Traditional Chinese Medicine for Heart Failure.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- A two-phase approach to identifying HFpEF in heart failure patients: Risk score evaluation and decision tree development.ESC heart failure · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsHeart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) poses significant diagnostic challenges due to its complex aetiology and overlapping symptoms with other HF types. The heterogeneity of HFpEF, compounded by frequent comorbidities, complicates diagnosis. This study aimed to enhance HFpEF prediction through a two-phase approach: a simplified risk score and a decision tree model. METHODS AND
resultsIn Phase 1, an 8-point risk score based on accessible clinical parameters was developed. In Phase 2, we conducted comprehensive predictive modelling using decision tree analysis. Data from 560 HF patients were analysed. It achieved an accuracy of 63.13% (sensitivity: 62.87%, specificity: 54.24%). In Phase 2, a decision tree model using broader clinical variables improved accuracy to 73.04% (sensitivity: 53.89%, specificity: 81.17%).
conclusionsThis dual framework provides tools for both quick screening and detailed risk stratification in various clinical settings.
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.