ArticleNPJ cardiovascular health2026
Improving arrhythmic risk prediction using cardiac magnetic resonance within deep learning in ischemic heart disease.
Article in NPJ cardiovascular health, 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
Sudden arrhythmic death remains a major clinical risk in ischemic heart disease (IHD), underscoring the need for improved risk stratification. Late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) provides measures of scar burden and heterogeneity, but its incremental prognostic value beyond conventional markers such as left ventricular ejection fraction remains uncertain. We analysed two independent IHD cohorts (Dataset 1: n = 399, 54 events; National Research Ethics Service approvals 07/H0708/83 and 09/H0504/104+5; Dataset 2: n = 424, 50 events; derived from the prospectively registered REVIVED-BCIS2 trial, ISRCTN45979711, registered 20 November 2012)using clinical and LGE-CMR-derived variables to evaluate the contribution of LGE-CMR features, and compare machine learning-based survival modelling approaches. A brute-force feature-selection strategy identified optimal predictor subsets for Cox proportional hazards models, Random Survival Forests, and DeepSurv, evaluated using cross-cohort and pooled validation strategies. Scar entropy consistently emerged as a strong predictor of major arrhythmic events. Non-linear approaches outperformed Cox regression, with DeepSurv demonstrating superior generalization across cohorts and Random Survival Forests showing robust performance in pooled analyses. These findings support scar heterogeneity as an important prognostic marker and suggest that machine-learning survival models may improve arrhythmic risk prediction in patients with IHD.
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.