Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33903608›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Machine learning and deep learning to predict mortality in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection.

Chayakrit Krittanawong, Hafeez Ul Hassan Virk, Anirudh Kumar, Mehmet Aydar, Zhen Wang, Matthew P Stewart, Jonathan L Halperin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Chayakrit KrittanawongSection of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Chayakrit.Krittanawong@bcm.edu.
Hafeez Ul Hassan VirkDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Anirudh KumarHeart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Mehmet AydarDepartment of Computer Science, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA.
Zhen WangRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Matthew P StewartThe Institute of Applied and Computational Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Jonathan L HalperinIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, The the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai Heart, New York, NY, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · USCleveland Clinic · USHarvard University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USKent State University · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) can successfully predict high prevalence events in very large databases (big data), but the value of this methodology for risk prediction in smaller cohorts with uncommon diseases and infrequent events is uncertain. The clinical course of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is variable, and no reliable methods are available to predict mortality. Based on the hypothesis that machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques could enhance the identification of patients at risk, we applied a deep neural network to information available in electronic health records (EHR) to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with SCAD. We extracted patient data from the EHR of an extensive urban health system and applied several ML and DL models using candidate clinical variables potentially associated with mortality. We partitioned the data into training and evaluation sets with cross-validation. We estimated model performance based on the area under the receiver-operator characteristics curve (AUC) and balanced accuracy. As sensitivity analyses, we examined results limited to cases with complete clinical information available. We identified 375 SCAD patients of which mortality during the index hospitalization was 11.5%. The best-performing DL algorithm identified in-hospital mortality with AUC 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99), compared to other ML models (P < 0.0001). For prediction of mortality using ML models in patients with SCAD, the AUC ranged from 0.50 with the random forest method (95% CI 0.41-0.58) to 0.95 with the AdaBoost model (95% CI 0.93-0.96), with intermediate performance using logistic regression, decision tree, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, and extreme gradient boosting methods. A deep neural network model was associated with higher predictive accuracy and discriminative power than logistic regression or ML models for identification of patients with ACS due to SCAD prone to early mortality.

Indexed as

Coronary VesselsDatabases, FactualDeep LearningElectronic Health RecordsHospital MortalityModels, CardiovascularAdultCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRupture, Spontaneous

Identifiers

PMID33903608
PMCPMC8076284
OpenAlexW3158097511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.