ArticleCirculation reports2026
Risk Stratification and Outcome Prediction in Heart Failure Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Using Machine Learning Analysis From the HINODE Study.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure (HF) is increasing in Japan's rapidly aging population, yet use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy remains lower than in Western countries. Using data from HINODE, which prospectively evaluated Japanese patients with cardiac devices, we developed interpretable machine learning (ML) models to improve risk stratification and identify key predictors of adverse outcomes. Methods and Results: Among 354 HINODE participants, 332 with adequate data were analyzed. Predictive models (XGBoost; 5-fold cross-validation) targeted HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Missingness was handled with multiple imputation; calibration was assessed by calibration plots and Hosmer-Lemeshow tests. Model discrimination was strong (area under the curve 0.83 and 0.85 for HF events and mortality). Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) highlighted QRS duration, QT interval, left ventricular (LV) volumes, and selected medications as major contributors. Using top SHAP features, K-means (k=2) identified low-risk (n=236) and high-risk (n=86) clusters. The high-risk cluster had larger LV volumes, wider QRS, and higher event rates. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences between clusters for HF events (15.7% vs. 47.7%, log-rank P<0.001) and mortality (8.1% vs. 20.9%; hazard ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.60). Performance was temporally stable across enrollment periods. Conclusions: Interpretable ML provided accurate risk prediction and phenotype-based stratification in Japanese HF patients with cardiac devices, supporting personalized management.
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.