Back

AI-driven selection of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation for oral anticoagulation therapy: a multi-cohort validation and impact evaluation study

Rao, S.; Walli-Attaei, M.; Ahmed, N.; Fan, Z.; Petrazzini, B.; Lian, J.; Ghamari, S.; Wamil, M.; Lip, G. Y. H.; Leal, J.; Rahimi, K.

2026-03-25 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.23.26349067 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Current risk assessment tools for guiding direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) based on clinical risk factors demonstrate modest predictive performance limiting clinical impact. Additionally, while guidelines recommend periodic reassessment of risk over time, there remains an absence of modelling solutions for capturing evolving risk in AF patients. Methods: Using UK electronic health records, we developed and validated the Transformer-based Risk assessment survival model (TRisk), an artificial intelligence model that predicts 12-month thromboembolic and bleeding events in AF patients by leveraging temporal patient journeys up to baseline. A cohort of 411,850 prevalent non-valvular AF patients aged [≥]18 years between 2010 and 2020 was identified from 1,442 English general practices. Practices were randomly allocated to derivation (n=1,079) and external validation (n=363) cohorts. TRisk was compared with CHA2DS2-VASc and CHA2DS2-VA for thromboembolic event prediction, and HAS-BLED and ORBIT for bleeding prediction, with subgroup analyses by sex, age, and baseline characteristics. A second validation of TRisk was also performed on 16,218 US AF patients between 2010 and 2023. A decision model compared outcomes and healthcare costs for TRisk versus standard care. Findings: TRisk achieved higher discrimination for thromboembolic event prediction (C-index: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.81, 0.83]) as compared to CHA2DS2-VASc (0.71 [0.70, 0.73]) in UK validation. Application of TRisk to US data yielded similar C-index: 0.82 (0.80, 0.84). For bleeding prediction, TRisk (C-index: 0.70 [0.69-0.71]) outperformed both HAS-BLED (0.63; [0.61, 0.64]) and ORBIT (0.64; [0.63, 0.65]), with comparable US results (0.71; [0.69, 0.74]). The model remained well-calibrated across both populations and performed equitably across subgroups, including by race and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Impact analyses showed TRisk could reduce DOAC prescriptions by 8% in the UK and 7% in the US relative to guideline-recommended approaches, while preventing at least as many thromboembolic events. This refined approach would generate annual healthcare savings of GBP 5.5 million and USD 456.2 million in the UK and US respectively among patients initiating DOACs, rising to GBP 48.6 million and USD 1.8 billion when extended to all AF patients on DOACs. Interpretation: TRisk enabled more precise prediction for both thromboembolic and bleeding events across AF populations in UK and US compared to established clinical scoring systems. Incorporating TRisk into routine AF care would result in substantial cost savings without compromising the identification of true high-risk patients. Funding: None

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
3
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.7%
5
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
6
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.9%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.5%
10
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
11
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
12
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
17
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
19
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
21
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
23
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%