aiqbench analysis
This systematic review of 56 studies finds that heart failure mortality prediction is shifting from conventional statistics toward machine learning and deep learning, but the field's evidence base is weak. Most cohorts use undefined heart failure labels, and only 23% of studies report external validation, so reported performance is hard to compare or trust. For AI readers, the main takeaway is that clinical ML work needs standardized reporting and external validation before its results can support care decisions.
Development of tools for all-cause mortality prediction in heart failure patients: a systematic review
arXiv:2611.03665v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Heart failure is a serious medical condition associated with risk of acute deterioration, recurrent hospitalizations and high mortality making accurate mortality prediction potentially valuable for patient care and healthcare planning. Numerous prognostic models have been developed using conventional statistics (CS), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), but variation in study populations, heart failure definitions, prediction horizons and development practices may limit interpretation of applicability. We conducted a systematic review of mortality prediction models published between 2009 to the start of 2026 searching three databases (PubMed, IEEE and Scopus) for studies predicting all-cause mortality over a 1-60 months prediction horizon among patients with heart failure. Data extracted were cohort characteristics, heart failure definitions, model development, cohort size, validation practices, mortality, computational model design and reported performance. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Of 1516 publications identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria. Publication numbers increased over the observation period, alongside increasing use of ML/DL models and decreasing use of CS approaches. Most development cohorts (64%) were classified as Unknown/Undefined heart failure, reflecting inconsistent reporting and terminology that did not correspond with established heart failure guidelines. External validation was reported in 23% of studies. Overall, research in modeling heart failure mortality has grown alongside increasing adoption of ML/DL approaches. Greater standardization of study design and reporting is needed for meaningful comparison, reproducibility and evaluation of models for clinical application.
Abstract:Heart failure is a serious medical condition associated with risk of acute deterioration, recurrent hospitalizations and high mortality making accurate mortality prediction potentially valuable for patient care and healthcare planning. Numerous prognostic models have been developed using conventional statistics (CS), machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), but variation in study populations, heart failure definitions, prediction horizons and development practices may limit interpretation of applicability. We conducted a systematic review of mortality prediction models published between 2009 to the start of 2026 searching three databases (PubMed, IEEE and Scopus) for studies predicting all-cause mortality over a 1-60 months prediction horizon among patients with heart failure. Data extracted were cohort characteristics, heart failure definitions, model development, cohort size, validation practices, mortality, computational model design and reported performance. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Of 1516 publications identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria. Publication numbers increased over the observation period, alongside increasing use of ML/DL models and decreasing use of CS approaches. Most development cohorts (64%) were classified as Unknown/Undefined heart failure, reflecting inconsistent reporting and terminology that did not correspond with established heart failure guidelines. External validation was reported in 23% of studies. Overall, research in modeling heart failure mortality has grown alongside increasing adoption of ML/DL approaches. Greater standardization of study design and reporting is needed for meaningful comparison, reproducibility and evaluation of models for clinical application.
Applications (stat.AP); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2611.03665 [stat.AP]
(or arXiv:2611.03665v1 [stat.AP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.03665 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 335 words
Related coverage
A Time-Synchronous Prequential Evaluation Framework for Next-Week Student Disengagement Prediction from Moodle LMS Logs
arXiv · Oct 14, 2026
Research Lessons I Learned at MATS & Redwood
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026
Isotonic Conformal Prediction
arXiv · Jul 21, 2026
Probabilistic learning to perform pre-onset individualised prediction of disease severity: application to Veno Occlusive Disease
arXiv · Jun 8, 2026