ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2006
How artificial intelligence tools can be used to assess individual patient risk in cardiovascular disease: problems with the current methods.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction model of artificial neural network for the risk of hyperuricemia incorporating dietary risk factors in a Chinese adult study.Food & nutrition research · 2020Article
- A new non-invasive diagnostic tool in coronary artery disease: artificial intelligence as an essential element of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.The EPMA journal · 2018Article
- An artificial neural network prediction model of congenital heart disease based on risk factors: A hospital-based case-control study.Medicine · 2017Observational
- Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2013Review
- Combining personality traits with traditional risk factors for coronary stenosis: an artificial neural networks solution in patients with computed tomography detected coronary artery disease.Cardiovascular psychiatry and neurology · 2013Article
- Artificial Adaptive Systems and predictive medicine: a revolutionary paradigm shift.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years a number of algorithms for cardiovascular risk assessment has been proposed to the medical community. These algorithms consider a number of variables and express their results as the percentage risk of developing a major fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event in the following 10 to 20 years DISCUSSION: The author has identified three major pitfalls of these algorithms, linked to the limitation of the classical statistical approach in dealing with this kind of non linear and complex information. The pitfalls are the inability to capture the disease complexity, the inability to capture process dynamics, and the wide confidence interval of individual risk assessment. Artificial Intelligence tools can provide potential advantage in trying to overcome these limitations. The theoretical background and some application examples related to artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic have been reviewed and discussed. SUMMARY: The use of predictive algorithms to assess individual absolute risk of cardiovascular future events is currently hampered by methodological and mathematical flaws. The use of newer approaches, such as fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks, linked to artificial intelligence, seems to better address both the challenge of increasing complexity resulting from a correlation between predisposing factors, data on the occurrence of cardiovascular events, and the prediction of future events on an individual level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.