ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Prediction of all-cause mortality in coronary artery disease patients with atrial fibrillation based on machine learning models.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk prediction score for clinical outcome in atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease.Open heart · 2023Trial
- Predicting Mortality in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Machine Learning Study Based on the MIMIC-IV Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for prognosis in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review of perceived threats to patient rights and safety.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- A comparative patient-level prediction study in OMOP CDM: applicative potential and insights from synthetic data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) can include more diverse and more complex variables to construct models. This study aimed to develop models based on ML methods to predict the all-cause mortality in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsA total of 2037 CAD patients with AF were included in this study. Three ML methods were used, including the regularization logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machines. The fivefold cross-validation was used to evaluate model performance. The performance was quantified by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
resultsAfter univariate analysis, 24 variables with statistical differences were included into the models. The AUC of regularization logistic regression model, random forest model, and support vector machines model was 0.732 (95% CI 0.649-0.816), 0.728 (95% CI 0.642-0.813), and 0.712 (95% CI 0.630-0.794), respectively. The regularization logistic regression model presented the highest AUC value (0.732 vs 0.728 vs 0.712), specificity (0.699 vs 0.663 vs 0.668), and accuracy (0.936 vs 0.935 vs 0.935) among the three models. However, no statistical differences were observed in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the three models (all P > 0.05).
conclusionCombining the performance of all aspects of the models, the regularization logistic regression model was recommended to be used in clinical practice.
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.