Key result
Federated meta-analysis validates HEART score accuracy for MACE30, closely matching centralized data with ~0.76 AUROC.
Why the study?
Does a federated diagnostic meta-analytic approach yield performance estimates comparable to centralized patient-level analysis for predicting 30-day MACE using the HEART score in adult patients presenting to the ED with chest pain?
Observational (n=57,906)
Yes
Does a federated diagnostic meta-analytic approach yield performance estimates comparable to centralized patient-level analysis for predicting 30-day MACE using the HEART score in adult patients presenting to the ED with chest pain?
Effect estimate: AUROC 0.759 (95% CI 0.646-0.831)
A federated diagnostic meta-analysis approach provides comparable performance estimates to centralized patient-level data for evaluating the HEART score, enabling privacy-preserving multicenter research.
Clinicians can trust HEART score data from federated multicenter ED analyses; extends scalable, privacy-preserving research without centralizing patient-level data.
OBJECTIVES: Multicenter evaluation of emergency department (ED) risk stratification tools is often limited by barriers to patient-level data sharing. We used the HEART score as a clinical use case to evaluate whether a federated diagnostic meta-analytic approach yields performance estimates comparable to those obtained from centralized patient-level analysis for predicting 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE30). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study across six EDs between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023. Adult patients presenting with chest pain who had a documented HEART score were included. MACE30 was defined as acute myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or all-cause mortality. The diagnostic performance of the HEART score was evaluated using a federated bivariate random-effects meta-analysis based on site-level 2 × 2 tables, yielding pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) estimates. These results were compared with performance metrics derived from centralized patient-level analysis. RESULTS: Among 57,906 ED encounters with documented HEART scores, MACE30 occurred in 2.2%. In federated meta-analysis, the HEART score demonstrated high specificity and negative predictive value, consistent with its intended rule-out function, with modest between-site variability. The pooled HSROC area under the curve was 0.759 (95% CI, 0.646-0.831). Centralized patient-level analysis yielded similar discrimination (AUROC 0.785; 95% CI, 0.776-0.794). Differences between federated and centralized estimates were small and clinically modest, reflecting preservation of site-level heterogeneity and variation in outcome prevalence across EDs. CONCLUSIONS: Federated diagnostic meta-analysis produced HEART score performance estimates closely aligned with those obtained from centralized patient-level data. This approach enabled scalable, privacy-preserving multicenter evaluation of ED risk-stratification tools while accommodating heterogeneity across practice settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Chest pain (n=57,906). Federated diagnostic meta-analysis of HEART score vs. Centralized patient-level analysis was evaluated on Diagnostic performance for 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE30) (AUROC 0.759, 95% CI 0.646-0.831). Federated diagnostic meta-analysis of the HEART score yielded a pooled HSROC area under the curve of 0.759 (95% CI, 0.646-0.831), closely aligning with centralized patient-level analysis (AUROC 0.785).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: