ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning model for predicting in-hospital cardiac mortality among atrial fibrillation patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain age gap as biomarker linking cardiovascular diseases genetic susceptibility and causality.iScience · 2026Article
- Development and validation of interpretable machine learning models for predicting stroke in NVAF patients with CHAFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study developed and validated a machine learning (ML) model to predict in-hospital cardiac mortality in 18,727 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients using electronic medical record data. Four ML algorithms-random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), deep neural network, and logistic regression-were applied to 79 clinical variables, including demographics, vital signs, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and laboratory parameters. The XGBoost model achieved the best performance, with an area under the curve of 0.964 ± 0.014 in the training set and 0.932 ± 0.057 in the validation set, alongside precision, accuracy, and recall of 0.909 ± 0.021, 0.910 ± 0.021, and 0.897 ± 0.038, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations identified key predictors such as thyroid function indices (e.g., total triiodothyronine, total thyroxine), procalcitonin, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and international normalized ratio. This interpretable model holds promise for improving early risk stratification and individualized care in AF patients. Prospective, multi-center validation is needed to confirm its generalizability.
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.