ReviewCJC open2026
Machine Learning for Predicting Mortality Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Scoping Review of Current Literature.
Review in CJC open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review aims to consolidate the current evidence on the use of machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. This review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched for studies assessing the use of ML models for the prediction of mortality in patients undergoing TAVR. A total of 1076 citations were screened, of which 21 studies underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 11 studies comprising 101,030 patients were included for data extraction. Study sample sizes ranged from 178 to 54,739 patients, with reported mortality intervals ranging from 30 days to 5 years after surgery. The parameters that were included in these ML models included demographic and clinical variables, electrocardiographic findings, laboratory results, computed tomography scans, and the type and size of the selected TAVR device. A total of 13 ML models were assessed across the included studies. Random Forest appeared to be the highest performing ML model in predicting 30-day and 1-year survival following TAVR, with reported area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) scores ranging from 0.66 to 0.97. In addition, the gradient-boosted machine seemed to outperform the CoreValve and TAVI2-SCORE in predicting 1-year survival. ML models may allow for accurate prediction of mortality following TAVR and may offer advantages over traditional clinical risk scores. However, limited datasets and variability in algorithm metric scores remain the main limitations to the implementation of these models in clinical practice.
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.