ArticlePloS one2018
Machine learning models in electronic health records can outperform conventional survival models for predicting patient mortality in coronary artery disease.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
104 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine learning models for predicting response to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring alternative approaches to precision medicine through genomics and artificial intelligence - a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods to Pharmacy Data for Cancer Surveillance and Epidemiology Research: A Systematic Review.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of Prognostic Notifications on Inpatient Advance Care Planning: A Cluster Randomized Trial.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2025Trial
- Article
- Evaluating the Performance of Traditional Pharmacoepidemiologic and Machine Learning Models to Predict Pregnancies at Risk of Major Congenital Malformations.Birth defects research · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Approaches to Identify Influential Factors of the Comorbid Psychiatric Symptoms and Hypertension Among Rural Adults in Bangladesh: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction model for long-term mortality after ischemic stroke.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Identifying Hypertension Status in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Article
- Integrating phenotypic information of obstructive sleep apnea and deep representation of sleep-event sequences for cardiovascular risk prediction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a neural network survival prediction model for ischemic heart disease.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- Prediction models developed using artificial intelligence: similar predictive performances with highly varying predictions for individuals - an illustration in deep vein thrombosis.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Article
- Using the cancer aging and research group- breast cancer (CARG-BC) predictive model in older adults (OA) with early breast cancer: an external validation study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Feature Selection and Model Optimization for Survival Prediction in Patients with Angina Pectoris.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond Conventional Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Learning Model to Predict Cohort-Level Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- LIT-LVM: Structured Regularization for Interaction Terms in Linear Predictors using Latent Variable Models.Transactions on machine learning research · 2025Article
- A systematic comparison of short-term and long-term mortality prediction in acute myocardial infarction using machine learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Observational
- Data-Driven Approach to Development of a Risk Score for Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Total Joint Arthroplasty Using Electronic Health Records.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2025Article
44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prognostic modelling is important in clinical practice and epidemiology for patient management and research. Electronic health records (EHR) provide large quantities of data for such models, but conventional epidemiological approaches require significant researcher time to implement. Expert selection of variables, fine-tuning of variable transformations and interactions, and imputing missing values are time-consuming and could bias subsequent analysis, particularly given that missingness in EHR is both high, and may carry meaning. Using a cohort of 80,000 patients from the CALIBER programme, we compared traditional modelling and machine-learning approaches in EHR. First, we used Cox models and random survival forests with and without imputation on 27 expert-selected, preprocessed variables to predict all-cause mortality. We then used Cox models, random forests and elastic net regression on an extended dataset with 586 variables to build prognostic models and identify novel prognostic factors without prior expert input. We observed that data-driven models used on an extended dataset can outperform conventional models for prognosis, without data preprocessing or imputing missing values. An elastic net Cox regression based with 586 unimputed variables with continuous values discretised achieved a C-index of 0.801 (bootstrapped 95% CI 0.799 to 0.802), compared to 0.793 (0.791 to 0.794) for a traditional Cox model comprising 27 expert-selected variables with imputation for missing values. We also found that data-driven models allow identification of novel prognostic variables; that the absence of values for particular variables carries meaning, and can have significant implications for prognosis; and that variables often have a nonlinear association with mortality, which discretised Cox models and random forests can elucidate. This demonstrates that machine-learning approaches applied to raw EHR data can be used to build models for use in research and clinical practice, and identify novel predictive variables and their effects to inform future research.
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.