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.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of an in-hospital cardiogenic shock prediction model for AMI patients based on machine learning.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Detection Using Electronic Medical Records: A Review and Blueprint for Clinical Implementation and Future Research.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- The efficacy of artificial intelligence in predicting mortality rate and cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome patients.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Review
- Machine-learning based calculator for personalized risk assessment following ST-elevation myocardial infarction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Dynamic Predictive Models of Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Focus on Interventional and Critical Care Phases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of different AI systems for diagnosing sepsis, septic shock, and cardiogenic shock: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Heart Failure: An Evolving Paradigm.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Addressing myocardial infarction in South-Asian populations: risk factors and machine learning approaches.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Key Concepts in Machine Learning and Clinical Applications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing Cardiology through Artificial Intelligence-Big Data from Proactive Prevention to Precise Diagnostics and Cutting-Edge Treatment-A Comprehensive Review of the Past 5 Years.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Machine learning for predicting intrahospital mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2022Review
- Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Using Machine Learning.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Application of supervised machine learning algorithms to predict the risk of hidden blood loss during the perioperative period in thoracolumbar burst fracture patients complicated with neurological compromise.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Development and Internal Validation of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting the Risk of Surgical Site Infection Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Frontiers in medicine · 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.