ArticleMachine learning. Health2026
Machine learning models enhance detection of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.
Article in Machine learning. Health, 2026. 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.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Electrocardiographic Criteria in Differentiating Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy From Idiopathic Outflow Tract Ventricular Arrhythmia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Machine Learning in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: Phenotyping, Mechanism Discovery, and Clinical Applications.Cardiology in review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a heritable cardiac disorder associated with sudden cardiac death, yet its diagnosis remains slow, resource-intensive, and dependent on expert interpretation of multimodal tests. Machine learning approaches may enable earlier and more standardized detection. Here, we sought to identify an optimal machine learning strategy for ARVC detection, and to define its role within the diagnostic pathway. A composite dataset of 688 patients from the Johns Hopkins ARVC Registry was used to train and evaluate eight models based on 31 clinical, electrocardiogram (ECG), imaging, and genetic variables. Following an 80/20 train-test split, models were developed on the train set using five-fold stratified cross-validation and evaluated on the hold-out test cohort. Performance was assessed using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals. Model comparison was performed using the Friedman test with Nemenyi post-hoc analysis. Gradient boosted trees (GBT) achieved the highest overall performance (AUC = 0.943, 95% CI: 0.902-0.99; accuracy = 0.847, 95% CI: 0.786-0.907). Nemenyi testing showed GBT significantly outperformed Decision Tree and TabNet (
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.