ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021
Machine learning compared with rule-in/rule-out algorithms and logistic regression to predict acute myocardial infarction based on troponin T concentrations.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning model for predicting improvement in left ventricular systolic function in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Addressing myocardial infarction in South-Asian populations: risk factors and machine learning approaches.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- A Single High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T Strategy for Ruling Out Myocardial Infarction.Emergency medicine international · 2024Article
- Machine learning for early prediction of acute myocardial infarction or death in acute chest pain patients using electrocardiogram and blood tests at presentation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Machine learning compared with rule-in/rule-out algorithms and logistic regression to predict acute myocardial infarction based on troponin T concentrations.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
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
objectiveComputerized decision-support tools may improve diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among patients presenting with chest pain at the emergency department (ED). The primary aim was to assess the predictive accuracy of machine learning algorithms based on paired high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentrations with varying sampling times, age, and sex in order to rule in or out AMI.
methodsIn this register-based, cross-sectional diagnostic study conducted retrospectively based on 5695 chest pain patients at 2 hospitals in Sweden 2013-2014 we used 5-fold cross-validation 200 times in order to compare the performance of an artificial neural network (ANN) with European guideline-recommended 0/1- and 0/3-hour algorithms for hs-cTnT and with logistic regression without interaction terms. Primary outcome was the size of the intermediate risk group where AMI could not be ruled in or out, while holding the sensitivity (rule-out) and specificity (rule-in) constant across models.
resultsANN and logistic regression had similar (95%) areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve. In patients (n = 4171) where the timing requirements (0/1 or 0/3 hour) for the sampling were met, using ANN led to a relative decrease of 9.2% (95% confidence interval 4.4% to 13.8%; from 24.5% to 22.2% of all tested patients) in the size of the intermediate group compared to the recommended algorithms. By contrast, using logistic regression did not substantially decrease the size of the intermediate group.
conclusionMachine learning algorithms allow for flexibility in sampling and have the potential to improve risk assessment among chest pain patients at the ED.
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.