ArticleESC heart failure2026
A machine-learning model for accurate diuresis prediction in acute heart failure (DRC-AHF).
Article in ESC heart failure, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to develop a machine learning-based tool for accurate quantitative prediction of diuretic response in acute heart failure (AHF).
methodsWe prospectively enrolled 296 AHF patients (20% female, mean age 68 ± 13 years, mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 62 ± 30 ml/min/1.73m2, median NT-proBNP 7112 [4082-14 400] pg/ml) in a single-centre derivation/validation study. A random forest regression model was developed using derivation (n = 50) and optimization (n = 246) cohorts and externally validated in an independent cohort (n = 50; mean age 69 ± 14 years, mean eGFR 56 ± 27 ml/min/1.73m2). Predictors were eGFR, spot urine sodium (uNa), and urine creatinine (uCr) obtained 2 h after intravenous furosemide.
resultsIn the validation cohort (n = 50), the median observed 6 h urine output was 1220 [950-1750] ml vs model-estimated 1446 [957-1749] ml (P = .480). Observed and estimated values showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94, P < .0001), with a mean absolute error of 413 ml and a mean bias of 67 ± 383 ml on the Bland-Altman analysis. The model correctly classified 44/50 patients (88%) into predefined diuresis categories (≤900, 900-1800, and ≥1800 ml), compared with 58% for the reference natriuretic response prediction equation. Mean absolute error decreased progressively by approximately 200 ml per 100 additional patients, confirming data-driven performance improvement.
conclusionsA three-variable machine learning model (eGFR, uNa, and uCr at 2 h post-diuretic) predicted 6 h urine output with high accuracy in AHF and demonstrated adaptive improvement with expanding training data. The calculator is freely available at https://diuresis.umw.edu.pl.
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.