ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
High-dimensional machine learning models for prediction of heart failure in more than 400 000 men and women from the UK Biobank.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 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.
- Prediction of incident heart failure in men and women with a history of myocardial infarction.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of an explainable machine learning model for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in intensive care unit patients with heart failure.Frontiers 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: We aimed to compare performances of conventional survival models with machine learning (ML) survival models for incident heart failure (HF) in men and women without prevalent HF, cardiomyopathy (CM) or ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and to identify potential high-risk precursors overlooked by conventional survival models. Methods and results: We predicted 10-year risk of incident HF in 266 306 women (2894 events) and 212 061 men (4213 events). We constructed multivariable Cox models, first using ∼ 400 baseline characteristics, and subsequently only those remaining after LASSO stability selection. We also used Random Survival Forest (RSF) and eXtreme Gradient Survival Boosting (XGBoost). Performances were assessed using internal cross validation and hold-out sets, with C-indices, calibration curves and net-benefit analyses. Model performances were comparable during internal validation: XGBoost ( Conclusion: Machine learning models and Cox proportional hazard models performed well and similarly for 10-year incident HF risk prediction in the general population. However, sex-specific and model-specific risk predictors were found. Spirometry measures, rarely included in existing models, were identified as important risk factors. Our results suggest that ML models for HF prediction in the general population reveal insights that would otherwise remain unnoticed.
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.