ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Interpretable machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- AI-Driven Atrial Fibrillation Management: From Signal to Strategy.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Predicting common cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular outcomes after new-onset atrial fibrillation: an analysis from a UK nationwide primary-secondary care linkage dataset.European heart journal open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia and a leading cause of ischemic stroke. Existing risk scores, such as CHA₂DS₂-VASc, offer limited predictive accuracy and fail to capture complex clinical patterns. To improve generalizability and clinical utility, we developed and externally validated clinically interpretable machine learning models using only age, comorbidities, and medication use to predict 1-year stroke risk in patients with newly diagnosed AF. Both logistic regression (LR) and Platt-calibrated extreme gradient boosting (XGB) models achieved high discrimination in internal (AUCs = 0.915 and 0.914) and external validation cohorts (AUCs = 0.877-0.886), significantly outperforming CHA₂DS₂-VASc (AUCs = 0.614-0.621; p < 0.001). Calibration curves and decision curve analysis confirmed strong clinical utility. Long-term follow-up demonstrated superior risk stratification and treatment responsiveness in LR-defined high-risk groups. These models provide accurate, individualized stroke risk estimates to guide direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) initiation in real-world hospital settings.
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.