Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34511920›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2021

Optimized Machine Learning Models to Predict In-Hospital Mortality for Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Jia Zhao, Pengyu Zhao, Chunjie Li, Yonghong Hou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hand movements prediction via fNIRS and AI algorithms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Jia ZhaoGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, People's Republic of China.
Pengyu ZhaoSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, People's Republic of China.
Chunjie LiDepartment of Cardiology, Tianjin Chest Hospital, Tianjin, 300222, People's Republic of China.
Yonghong HouSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to optimize machine learning (ML) models for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 5708 STEMI patients were enrolled and divided into two groups according to patients' hospital outcomes. Both groups were randomly split into a training set (75%) and a testing set (25%). Four ML models were trained with data, which applied random under-sampling (RUS). The performance of optimized ML models was evaluated with respect to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, G-mean and AUC. Two sets of features in chronological order were considered: a full set that included all variables during hospitalization and a simplified set that only included variables prior to reperfusion therapy, and the performance of the prediction models trained with these two sets of features was compared.

resultsFor the comprehensive metric - G-mean, the models trained with RUS outperformed those without, 80.54% vs 23.31% on average in the full set and 75.72% vs 35.76% on average in the simplified set. For models trained with the full set, the SVM achieved the best performance with 85.62% accuracy, 84.21% sensitivity, 85.66% specificity, 84.93% G-mean and 0.919 AUC. For models trained with the simplified set, the SVM achieved 83.48% G-mean, which was comparable to the models trained using the full set. For the most critical metric - sensitivity, the SVM trained using the simplified set achieved 89.47%, which even exceed the SVM (84.21%), DT (81.58%) and RF (81.58%) trained using the full set.

conclusionApplying RUS can improve the performance of prediction models, and the models trained with simplified set, which only included variables prior to reperfusion therapy can accurately predict high-risk patients.

Indexed as

in-hospital mortalityoptimized machine learning algorithmprediction modelrandom under-samplingSTEMI

Identifiers

PMID34511920
PMCPMC8427294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.