ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Prediction of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy using machine learning and routinely available clinical data.
Article in European heart journal. Digital 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Risk stratification for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy remains imprecise when based on conventional clinical variables alone. We aimed to develop and geographically validate a machine-learning model that integrates routinely available clinical, electrocardiogram, and device interrogation/programming parameters, and quantify the incremental value of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT). Methods and results: We retrospectively analysed 514 ICD recipients implanted between 2020 and 2025 at two hospital sites (development cohort) and an independent cohort of 220 patients from a third site (external validation). The endpoint was appropriate ICD therapy (anti-tachycardia pacing or shock). Models were trained using nested stratified cross-validation in the development cohort, and the final refitted model was applied to the external cohort without recalibration. In the development cohort, 77/514 patients (15%) experienced appropriate ICD therapy (follow-up 404 days). A base model (histogram-based gradient boosting) excluding NSVT achieved modest discrimination [receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-area under the curve (AUC) 0.624; average precision 0.198]. Adding NSVT improved performance (ROC-AUC 0.805; average precision 0.432). Logistic regression with NSVT achieved comparable discrimination (ROC-AUC 0.78; average precision 0.43), indicating a largely NSVT-driven gain. External validation (event rate 51/220, 23%) confirmed good discrimination (ROC-AUC 0.815; average precision 0.583) with acceptable calibration (Brier score 0.137). At the pre-specified threshold of 0.16 in external validation, sensitivity was 0.78 and specificity was 0.74. Conclusion: A machine-learning model integrating routinely available clinical, electrocardiogram, and ICD programming/interrogation data may enable the prediction of appropriate ICD therapy with preserved performance on geographic external validation. NSVT was the dominant contributor to predictive performance across modelling approaches.
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.