ArticleOpen heart2026
Differentiating HFmr/rEF from HFpEF using standard 12-lead ECG measurements: an interpretable machine learning study.
Article in Open heart, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/reduced ejection fraction (HFmr/rEF) from HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) guides therapy but echocardiography may be delayed or unavailable. We developed and validated machine learning models using routine 12-lead ECG data to classify HF phenotypes.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort of hospitalised patients with HF, predictors available at or before the index ECG were used. HFmrEF was pooled with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) for model development. Data were split 70/30 into training and held-out test sets. Random forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting and support vector machine models were trained and tuned using fivefold cross-validation in the training set. Boruta was used to select key ECG features. Test-set performance was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC) and accuracy; AUCs were compared using DeLong's test.
resultsOverall, 495 patients were included (254 HFmr/rEF; 241 HFpEF). RF consistently performed best. Using ECG features alone, RF achieved an AUC of 0.821 (95% CI 0.752 to 0.890) and accuracy of 75.7%. A parsimonious RF model using 12 Boruta-selected ECG variables achieved an AUC of 0.832 (95% CI 0.766 to 0.899) and accuracy of 76.4%, with no significant AUC difference versus a comprehensive RF model using clinical/laboratory/ECG predictors (AUC 0.804, 95% CI 0.734 to 0.875; p=0.288) or the model using all ECG features (p=0.092). Adding X-ray cardiomegaly did not improve performance.
conclusionA parsimonious RF model based on a small set of standard ECG measurements differentiates HFmr/rEF from HFpEF with good discrimination, supporting ECG as an adjunct for phenotyping when echocardiography is not immediately available.
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.