ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
A machine learning model to simplify recognition of patients with atrial fibrillation based on diagnostic codes in Swedish primary health care.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for atherothrombotic complications but is often asymptomatic and undiagnosed. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model to distinguish between individuals with low and high risk of AF, using routinely collected diagnostic data from Swedish primary health care.
methodsCases (n = 42,607, aged ≥ 45 years) with diagnosed new onset AF and controls (n = 427,169) matched by age and sex. Machine learning models stratified for age (45–69 and ≥ 70 years) and sex were developed using stochastic gradient boosting, based on number of primary health care visits during the year before the index AF diagnosis, age, and ICD-10 codes from electronic medical records 2014–2019. Performance was evaluated by AUC, sensitivity and specificity, and key predictors ranked by normalized relative influence (NRI) and odds ratios for marginal effects.
resultsThe most influential predictors were the number of visits (NRI: 29.9–46.3%) and age (NRI: 6.2–15.9%), followed by risk factors for AF such as heart failure, hypertension, and cardiac arrhythmias. Model AUC ranged from 0.77 to 0.79 across subgroups. Sensitivity was 0.76–0.80, and specificity 0.58–0.66, with higher sensitivity in older groups and higher specificity in younger ones. The models correctly identified 95–98% of individuals without known AF.
conclusionsThe models show good predictive ability, effectively ruling out low-risk patients while identifying known risk factors. With AUC values comparable to more complex models, our approach using only visit frequency, age, and diagnoses may support initial risk assessment in primary health care for identifying individuals at risk of AF.
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.