Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34430603›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021

Development of a machine learning model to predict the risk of late cardiogenic shock in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Zhixun Bai, Shan Hu, Yan Wang, Wenwen Deng, Ning Gu, Ranzun Zhao, Wei Zhang, Yi Ma, Zhenglong Wang, Zhijiang Liu and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Using Machine Learning.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhixun BaiCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Shan HuCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Yan WangCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Wenwen DengCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Ning GuCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Ranzun ZhaoCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Yi MaDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Zhenglong WangDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Zhijiang LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Changyin ShenDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Bei ShiCollege of Medicine, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
Zunyi Medical University · CNSoochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe in-hospital mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) increases to more than 50% following a cardiogenic shock (CS) event. This study highlights the need to consider the risk of delayed calculation in developing in-hospital CS risk models. This report compared the performances of multiple machine learning models and established a late-CS risk nomogram for STEMI patients.

methodsThis study used logistic regression (LR) models, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), support vector regression (SVM), and tree-based ensemble machine learning models [light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)] to predict CS risk in STEMI patients. The models were developed based on 1,598 and 684 STEMI patients in the training and test datasets, respectively. The models were compared based on accuracy, the area under the curve (AUC), recall, precision, and Gini score, and the optimal model was used to develop a late CS risk nomogram. Discrimination, calibration, and the clinical usefulness of the predictive model were assessed using C-index, calibration plotd, and decision curve analyses.

resultsA total of 2282 STEMI patients recruited between January 1, 2016 and May 31, 2020, were included in the complete dataset. The linear models built using LASSO and LR showed the highest overall predictive power, with an average accuracy over 0.93 and an AUC above 0.82. With a C-index of 0.811 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.769-0.853], the LASSO nomogram showed good differentiation and proper calibration. In internal validation tests, a high C-index value of 0.821 was achieved. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve (CIC) examination showed that compared with the previous score-based models, the LASSO model showed superior clinical relevance.

conclusionsIn this study, five machine learning methods were developed for in-hospital CS prediction. The LASSO model showed the best predictive performance. This nomogram could provide an accurate prognostic prediction for CS risk in patients with STEMI.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shock (CS)least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)Machine learningST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)

Identifiers

PMID34430603
PMCPMC8350690
OpenAlexW3177614057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.