ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2021
Optimized Machine Learning Models to Predict In-Hospital Mortality for Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Evolution of Risk Measurement Techniques and Assessment of Their Effectiveness (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Pooled it
- The predictive value of machine learning for mortality risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2023Pooled it
- Machine-learning Algorithms for Ischemic Heart Disease Prediction: A Systematic Review.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Hand movements prediction via fNIRS and AI algorithms.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Comparing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mortality after Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- STEMI-OP in-hospital mortality prediction algorithms: Frailty-integrated machine learning in older patients undergoing primary PCI.npj aging · 2025Article
- Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Addressing myocardial infarction in South-Asian populations: risk factors and machine learning approaches.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Prediction of in-hospital mortality risk for patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction after primary PCI based on predictors selected by GRACE score and two feature selection methods.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- A biomarker discovery of acute myocardial infarction using feature selection and machine learning.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023Article
- Using Machine Learning to Predict the In-Hospital Mortality in Women with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Prediction of suicidal ideation among Chinese college students based on radial basis function neural network.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Comparative evaluation of machine learning models versus TIMI score in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.