Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31535314›Full record

ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2020

Machine learning versus traditional risk stratification methods in acute coronary syndrome: a pooled randomized clinical trial analysis.

William J Gibson, Tarek Nafee, Ryan Travis, Megan Yee, Mathieu Kerneis, Magnus Ohman, C Michael Gibson

4 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00402597 phase2completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.Ran2006 to 2008Enrolled3,490ConditionsAcute Coronary SyndromeArmsRivaroxaban/Placebo, Placebo, Rivaroxaban
NCT00809965 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.Ran2008 to 2011Enrolled15,526ConditionsAcute Coronary Syndrome, Myocardial Infarction, Myocardial Ischemia, Unstable AnginaArmsRivaroxaban 2.5 mg, Rivaroxaban 5 mg, Placebo, Standard of care
NCT01830543 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorJanssen Scientific Affairs, LLCRan2013 to 2016Enrolled2,124ConditionsAtrial Fibrillation, Percutaneous Coronary InterventionArmsrivaroxaban 2.5 mg, rivaroxaban 15 mg, rivaroxaban 10 mg, aspirin (ASA), vitamin K antagonist (VKA)
NCT02293395 phase2completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorJanssen Research & Development, LLCRan2015 to 2016Enrolled3,037ConditionsAcute Coronary SyndromeArmsAcetylsalicylic acid, Rivaroxaban, Clopidogrel, Ticagrelor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

William J GibsonThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Tarek NafeeThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Ryan TravisThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Megan YeeThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Mathieu KerneisThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA.
Magnus OhmanThe Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, USA.
C Michael GibsonThe Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, USA. mgibson@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Acute Coronary SyndromeHemorrhageMachine LearningAgedFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, CardiovascularRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentFibrinolytic AgentsAcute coronary syndromeMachine learningMajor adverse cardiovascular eventsPersonalized medicineSuper learner

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.