ArticleScientific reports2026
Multicenter machine learning model for assessing the impact of malignancy on in-hospital mortality in heart failure patients: a clinical decision support system with interpretable artificial intelligence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and external validation of an explainable machine learning model for in-hospital mortality risk stratification in intensive care unit patients with heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) and malignancy represent two major global health burdens that frequently coexist and lead to poor clinical outcomes. However, the specific impact of malignancy on in-hospital mortality in HF patients remains incompletely understood, and reliable predictive tools specifically for HF patients with comorbid malignancy are currently lacking. This multicenter retrospective study analyzed data from the eICU collaborative research database (eICU database), medical information mart for intensive care IV (MIMIC-IV) databases, and medical information mart for intensive care III (MIMIC-III) databases, including 21,403 HF patients (3341 with malignancy). We employed three analytical approaches: propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW), and multivariable logistic regression to assess malignancy-associated mortality risk. For predictive modeling, five machine learning algorithms were trained on the eICU database (70% training, 30% internal validation) and externally validated using both MIMIC-IV and MIMIC-III datasets. All three analytical methods (PSM, IPTW, and multivariable regression) yielded highly consistent results, demonstrating that malignancy significantly increased in-hospital mortality risk (PSM: OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.24; IPTW: OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31; multivariable regression: OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08-1.36). The AdaBoost model, developed using 19 key predictive variables selected by the Boruta algorithm, demonstrated excellent performance with a training set AUC of 0.849 and internal validation AUC of 0.740, while maintaining good discriminative ability in external validation (MIMIC-IV: AUC 0.739; MIMIC-III: AUC 0.699). To enhance model interpretability, SHapley additive exPlanations analysis revealed the top five predictive variables: simplified acute physiology score II, mechanical ventilation requirement, heart rate, body temperature, and respiratory rate. For clinical implementation, we developed a web-based calculator (available at: https://nanzihan1998.shinyapps.io/Mortality/ ) to facilitate real-time mortality risk assessment. Our analysis suggests malignancy is associated with worse outcomes in HF patients. We developed an interpretable machine learning model that demonstrated moderate predictive performance for in-hospital mortality in this high-risk population. This approach could serve as a foundation for future risk stratification tools, but requires prospective validation before clinical application.
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.