ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Machine learning-enhanced baseline risk prediction models for cancer therapy related cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and critical appraisal of methodological quality.
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: Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent complication with adverse clinical implications. Guidelines have emphasized the need for reliable baseline risk prediction to guide prevention strategies. While machine learning (ML) has shown promise in cardiovascular medicine, the readiness of ML-based prognostic models for baseline CTRCD risk prediction in cardio-oncology remains unclear. Aims: To systematically review and critically appraise the performance, methodological quality, and clinical applicability of ML-based models for predicting baseline CTRCD risk. Methods and results: A search on Embase and Medline was conducted up to May 2026. Eligible studies used ML algorithms to estimate CTRCD risk prior to cancer treatment. Data were extracted using an adapted version of the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias (ROB) and reporting quality were assessed using PROBAST and TRIPOD + AI. Nine studies were included. Seven studies included novel models using multiple clinical and imaging predictors, while two repurposed or validated existing AI-enhanced electrocardiography (ECG) models. The levels of discrimination were at least moderate (AUC 0.65-0.88), calibration was only reported in two studies, and external validation in one. Multiparametric models showed higher performance metrics than ECG-only models but were methodologically constrained. Overall, most studies were limited by variability in outcome definitions, low event rates, limited transparency in reporting, and a lack of reproducibility measures. Conclusion: Current ML-based models for predicting CTRCD remain underdeveloped for clinical use. The present findings highlight the need for further work to optimize models by incorporating rigorous study designs, with emphasis on methodological clarity, standardized outcome definitions, and external validation to improve reproducibility.
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.