ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Integrating traditional statistics and explainable machine learning for risk stratification of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulsed field ablation: a hypothesis-generating single-center study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPredicting recurrence after pulsed field ablation (PFA) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) remains challenging, particularly in early-stage patients with minimal structural remodeling. Traditional risk scores from the radiofrequency ablation era may not be applicable to this new technology and patient profile.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included 92 symptomatic paroxysmal AF patients undergoing first-time PFA. The endpoint was AF recurrence after a 3-month blanking period. We integrated Cox regression with an pilot explainable machine learning (XAI) pipeline using a Random Forest model. Internal validation employed stratified 10-fold cross-validation and bootstrap resampling. Model interpretability was assessed using permutation importance and SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis. Performance was evaluated via calibration, discrimination (AUC), and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsOver a median 28-month follow-up, 13 patients (14.1%) recurred. Multivariable analysis preliminarily identified preoperative log(NT-proBNP) as an independent predictor (HR = 2.15, P = 0.008). While XAI suggested log(NT-proBNP) as the most influential feature, secondary predictors exhibited high instability with importance ranges largely overlapping with zero. The model demonstrated modest calibration (Brier score 0.143) and modest discrimination with high uncertainty (AUC 0.697, 95% CI 0.254-1.000). Decision curve analysis preliminarily suggested a trend toward clinical net benefit between 10 and 15% risk thresholds. An exploratory three-tier risk stratification (NT-proBNP > 300 pg/mL, fluoroscopy time > 22.5 min, LAD > 30 mm) differentiated recurrence risk (3.0%, 11.4%, 33.3% across low-, intermediate-, high-risk groups; Log-rank P < 0.001).
conclusionThis hypothesis-generating pilot study proposes preoperative NT-proBNP as a key candidate predictor for PFA recurrence and demonstrates a transparent XAI framework for small-sample analysis. All findings are preliminary and necessitate validation in larger, prospective cohorts, underscoring the need for PFA-specific prediction tools.
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.