ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020
Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 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.
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Dose-Escalation and Dose-Confirmation Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban in Combination With Aspirin Alone or With Aspirin and a Thienopyridine in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndromes
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Event-Driven Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Subjects With a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome
An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Active-controlled, Parallel-group, Multicenter Study to Compare the Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Addition to Either Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor Therapy in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy with Machine Learning : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Machine learning versus conventional clinical methods in guiding management of heart failure patients-a systematic review.Heart failure reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Machine Learning Prediction of Heart Failure Readmissions: Insights From a Multicenter Emergency Department Trial.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for early risk stratification of 28-day mortality after myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Predicting mortality risk in hospitalized ACS patients with hypertensive comorbidity: an interpretable machine learning approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: applications and perspectives.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Clinical Risk Computation by Large Language Models Using Validated Risk Scores.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Optimal mean arterial pressure for favorable neurological outcomes in patients after cardiac arrest.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of machine learning in predicting outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.AsiaIntervention · 2024Article
- Review
- Interpretable machine learning models for predicting in-hospital and 30 days adverse events in acute coronary syndrome patients in Kuwait.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Machine Learning for Early Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events After First Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardiovascular disease/stroke risk stratification in deep learning framework: a review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2023Review
- Patient-level explainable machine learning to predict major adverse cardiovascular events from SPECT MPI and CCTA imaging.PloS one · 2023Article
- A Powerful Paradigm for Cardiovascular Risk Stratification Using Multiclass, Multi-Label, and Ensemble-Based Machine Learning Paradigms: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional statistical models allow population based inferences and comparisons. Machine learning (ML) explores datasets to develop algorithms that do not assume linear relationships between variables and outcomes and that may account for higher order interactions to make individualized outcome predictions. To evaluate the performance of machine learning models compared to traditional risk stratification methods for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) that are treated with antithrombotic therapy. Data on 24,178 ACS patients were pooled from four randomized controlled trials. The super learner ensemble algorithm selected weights for 23 machine learning models and was compared to traditional models. The efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The safety endpoint was a composite of TIMI major and minor bleeding or bleeding requiring medical attention. For the MACE outcome, the super learner model produced a higher c-statistic (0.734) than logistic regression (0.714), the TIMI risk score (0.489), and a new cardiovascular risk score developed in the dataset (0.644). For the bleeding outcome, the super learner demonstrated a similar c-statistic as the logistic regression model (0.670 vs. 0.671). The machine learning risk estimates were highly calibrated with observed efficacy and bleeding outcomes (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value = 0.692 and 0.970, respectively). The super learner algorithm was highly calibrated on both efficacy and safety outcomes and produced the highest c-statistic for prediction of MACE compared to traditional risk stratification methods. This analysis demonstrates a contemporary application of machine learning to guide patient-level antithrombotic therapy treatment decisions.Clinical Trial Registration ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 46: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00402597. Unique Identifier: NCT00402597. ATLAS ACS-2 TIMI 51: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00809965. Unique Identifier: NCT00809965. GEMINI ACS-1: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02293395. Unique Identifier: NCT02293395. PIONEER-AF PCI: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01830543. Unique Identifier: NCT01830543.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31535314What 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.