Back

"Mortality Prediction in Heart Failure using Explainable AI: Development and Validation of the EXACT-HF Model in a Nationwide Multi-Ethnic Asian Cohort"

Jauhari, S. M.; Yeung, W. L.; Li, T.; Chua, J.; Zhang, A. A.; Lim, E.-H.; Cherian, R.; Sim, D.; Lee Shao Guang, S.; Soon, D. K. N.; Chan, P. F.; Loh, S. Y.; Jaufeerally, F. R.; Chan, S.-P.; Chan, M. Y.-Y.; Lin, W.; Wong, R. C. C.

2026-09-13 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.09.10.26362800 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Established heart-failure (HF) risk scores were developed largely in Western cohorts, assume linear predictor effects, and stop at prognosis without indicating action. We developed and externally validated machine-learning (ML) models for 30-day and 1-year mortality in a multi-ethnic Asian HF population, benchmarked against three established scores, and tested whether they localised correctable guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) gaps. Methods: We analysed 9,050 adults hospitalised with HF across eight Singapore hospitals (November 2016?March 2023). Gradient-boosted trees (XGBoost, primary) and elastic-net logistic regression were developed on three hospitals (n=4,034) and validated on five independent hospitals (n=5,016), without patient or site overlap. Comparators (MAGGIC, Singapore HF Score, OPTIMIZE-HF-Asia) were logistically recalibrated on development data. Results: On external validation XGBoost achieved AUROCs of 0.862 (95% CI 0.833?0.890) for 30-day and 0.749 (0.734?0.764) for 1-year mortality, versus 0.711?0.754 and 0.682?0.699 for the three recalibrated scores; logistic regression performed near-identically (0.864, 0.757) and was better calibrated at 1 year. Superiority held under temporal validation, multiple imputation and optimism correction, although the 30-day advantage was no longer distinguishable from MAGGIC once medications were removed. Among predicted-high-risk patients with reduced ejection fraction, mean GDMT exposure was 0.92 of four pillars versus 1.87 across all HFrEF patients, and 36.3% received none of the four versus 2.0% of low-risk patients. Ten variables reproduced full-model 30-day discrimination (AUROC 0.865). Conclusions: In external validation, interpretable models substantially outperformed established HF risk scores for short- and long-term mortality and simultaneously localised correctable therapeutic gaps, supporting a prediction-to-action tool deployable with ten bedside variables.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.