ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Derivation and validation of a machine learning-driven score to predict the diagnostic yield of endomyocardial biopsy.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite its low diagnostic yield, endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) remains the gold standard for establishing a definitive diagnosis in many cardiomyopathies. We developed and validated a machine-learning-based score to predict the likelihood of diagnostic EMB using non-invasive data. We retrospectively analyzed 775 heart failure patients who underwent EMB. A random forest algorithm was selected for score development based on superior discriminative performance. The model was externally validated in an independent cohort (n = 171). The study population was predominantly male (72.1%), with half of the patients in NYHA class III-IV. EMB yielded a definitive diagnosis in 19.9% of cases, most commonly amyloidosis (50%). A predictive score (0-100 range) was derived from key non-invasive predictors. Right ventricular late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance emerged as the strongest predictor, followed by left ventricular and atrial LGE, NTproBNP levels, and renal function. The model demonstrated excellent discrimination, with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89-0.96) in cross-validation and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.86-0.98) in the testing set, with consistent performance on external validation (AUC 0.82, 95% CI = 0.76-0.89). This machine-learning-based score may provide a non-invasive tool to support EMB decision-making in clinical practice.
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.