Evaluation of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), underscoring the need for accurate risk prediction. Traditional tools like CHA₂DS₂-VASc use limited clinical variables, often yielding imprecise estimates. Machine learning (ML) can offer potential for improved prediction by integrating broader clinical data. This study assesses the methods, performance, and real-world applicability of ML models for CVA prediction in AF. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in September 2024. A random-effects meta-analysis on eligible studies pooled the predictive performance (AUROC) of ML models and the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Comparative analyses were conducted between the two, alongside subgroup analyses by ML algorithm type and validation strategy. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024539628). Seventeen studies were included. Tree-based models were most frequently used, followed by logistic regression and neural networks. The pooled AUROC for ML models was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64–0.68), comparable to CHA₂DS₂-VASc (0.64; 95% CI: 0.62–0.66; P = 0.327). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of estimates, and no significant differences were found between algorithm types. Models evaluated only on training data had significantly higher AUROCs than those using validation sets (P = 0.002), suggesting performance inflation. Moreover, only two studies employed external validation, highlighting a critical gap in methodological rigor. Notably, heterogeneity arising from diversity in model designs, populations, outcomes, and CVA prevalence (as identified by meta-regression) limited the generalizability of our findings. Current ML models perform comparably to traditional tools for CVA risk prediction in AF patients; however, clinical applicability warrants methodological standardization and external validation in diverse populations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Published
2026-01-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-026-05508-2
Primary Topic
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Amir Hossein Behnoush, Zainab Humayun, Parisa Fallahtafti, Alireza Arvin et al.
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
article

Evaluation of machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Amir Hossein Behnoush, Zainab Humayun, Parisa Fallahtafti, Alireza Arvin, Morvarid Taebi, Alireza Azarboo, Masih Tajdini, Mahsa Momenzadeh
article en

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), underscoring the need for accurate risk prediction. Traditional tools like CHA₂DS₂-VASc use limited clinical variables, often yielding imprecise estimates. Machine learning (ML) can offer potential for improved prediction by integrating broader clinical data. This study assesses the methods, performance, and real-world applicability of ML models for CVA prediction in AF. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in September 2024. A random-effects meta-analysis on eligible studies pooled the predictive performance (AUROC) of ML models and the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Comparative analyses were conducted between the two, alongside subgroup analyses by ML algorithm type and validation strategy. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024539628). Seventeen studies were included. Tree-based models were most frequently used, followed by logistic regression and neural networks. The pooled AUROC for ML models was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64–0.68), comparable to CHA₂DS₂-VASc (0.64; 95% CI: 0.62–0.66; P = 0.327). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of estimates, and no significant differences were found between algorithm types. Models evaluated only on training data had significantly higher AUROCs than those using validation sets (P = 0.002), suggesting performance inflation. Moreover, only two studies employed external validation, highlighting a critical gap in methodological rigor. Notably, heterogeneity arising from diversity in model designs, populations, outcomes, and CVA prevalence (as identified by meta-regression) limited the generalizability of our findings. Current ML models perform comparably to traditional tools for CVA risk prediction in AF patients; however, clinical applicability warrants methodological standardization and external validation in diverse populations.

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR), University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.