ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2026
Implementation of Machine Learning in Heart Failure Trials.
Review in Current heart failure 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewHeart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome that challenges the design and interpretation of results from clinical trials. This review examines how machine learning (ML) can address methodological constraints of traditional trial models, such as rigid eligibility criteria, fixed endpoints, and limited external validity. RECENT
findingsBy integrating multimodal data from electronic health records, imaging, biomarkers, and wearables, ML enhances patient stratification, refines inclusion criteria, and improves prediction of mortality, HF hospitalization, and treatment response. It also enables adaptive trial designs, continuous monitoring, and dynamic endpoint evaluation. Despite these advances, challenges related to bias, interpretability, and regulatory adaptation persist. ML complements rather than replacing conventional methodologies, and promotes more adaptive, inclusive, and patient-centered HF research. Responsible implementation—based on transparency, rigorous validation, and fairness—may redefine evidence generation and bridge clinical trials with real-world practice.
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.