ArticleScientific reports2026
Explainable machine learning for risk prediction of acute cardiac tamponade during atrial fibrillation ablation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Cardiac tamponade is a rare yet catastrophic complication during atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. Influenced by multiple procedural and patient-related factors, its prediction remains highly challenging. This study aimed to develop and interpret a machine learning-based predictive model for cardiac tamponade during AF catheter ablation. Data were retrospectively collected from 1481 patients who underwent AF catheter ablation at a tertiary hospital in Nanjing, China, between October 2014 and December 2024. After identifying key predictors of intraoperative cardiac tamponade via least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, eight machine learning algorithms were trained using Python libraries. Model performance was evaluated through cross-validation, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was performed to interpret the best-performing model. The XGBoost model exhibited the optimal overall performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.972 in the training set and 0.908 in internal validation, demonstrating excellent calibration and the highest clinical net benefit. SHAP analysis identified five major predictors: operator experience, D-dimer level, total heparin dose, AF type, and left atrial diameter. These predictors represent multidimensional determinants associated with procedural technique, coagulation status, and cardiac anatomy. The XGBoost-based predictive model showed strong discriminative ability and interpretability for predicting cardiac tamponade during AF catheter ablation, which supports accurate preoperative risk stratification and guides intraoperative management to enhance procedural safety and precision. External validation across multiple centers is required to confirm the generalizability of the model.
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.