ArticleOpen heart2026
Does increasing model complexity improve HEART-based chest pain risk stratification? A multicentre development and held-out emergency department validation 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) score is widely used for emergency department (ED) chest pain risk stratification, but its fixed-point structure may not optimally represent relationships between its components and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We evaluated whether increasingly flexible modelling approaches improve prediction when restricted to the same five HEART components.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study of 47 853 adult ED patients with chest pain and documented HEART scores across six EDs from 2021 to 2023. Data from five EDs (n=39 587) were used for model development and one geographically held-out ED (n=8266) was used for validation. The conventional HEART score was compared with categorical cross-validated logistic regression (CVLR) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) for predicting 30-day MACE. Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), the Brier score, paired bootstrap comparisons and clinical performance at comparable-sensitivity operating points.
resultsIn the held-out validation cohort, 267 patients (3.23%) experienced 30-day MACE. AUROCs were similar for HEART (0.855), CVLR (0.857) and XGBoost (0.856; pairwise p>0.05). In contrast, both data-driven models demonstrated significantly higher AUPRC than HEART: CVLR (0.237 vs 0.187; Δ=0.050, p<0.001) and XGBoost (0.244 vs 0.187; Δ=0.057, p<0.001) with no significant difference between CVLR and XGBoost (p=0.305). At comparable-sensitivity operating points, HEART, CVLR and XGBoost classified 63.74%, 59.39% and 61.58% of patients as low risk, respectively, with corresponding low-risk MACE rates of 0.53%, 0.51% and 0.57%.
conclusionsData-driven reweighting of HEART components improved precision-recall performance and risk ranking compared with fixed HEART scoring. However, XGBoost provided no incremental benefit over categorical CVLR, and neither approach expanded low-risk classification at comparable sensitivity.
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.