ArticleHealthcare technology letters2021
Retrospective validation of a machine learning clinical decision support tool for myocardial infarction risk stratification.
Article in Healthcare technology letters, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating digital health and remote monitoring: emerging trends in cardiac rehabilitation research for chronic heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Policy Spotlight Effects on Critical Time-Sensitive Diseases: Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study on Taiwan's Hospital Emergency Capability Categorization Policy.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Decision Support for Early Detection of Cardiac Events: Unveiling Patterns and Predicting Myocardial Ischemia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Retrospective validation of a machine learning clinical decision support tool for myocardial infarction risk stratification.Healthcare technology letters · 2021Article
- Diabetes prediction using machine learning and explainable AI techniques.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis and appropriate intervention for myocardial infarction (MI) are time-sensitive but rely on clinical measures that can be progressive and initially inconclusive, underscoring the need for an accurate and early predictor of MI to support diagnostic and clinical management decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a machine learning algorithm (MLA) to predict MI diagnosis based on electronic health record data (EHR) readily available during Emergency Department assessment. An MLA was developed using retrospective patient data. The MLA used patient data as they became available in the first 3 h of care to predict MI diagnosis (defined by International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision code) at any time during the encounter. The MLA obtained an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87, sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 70%, outperforming the comparator scoring systems TIMI and GRACE on all metrics. An MLA can synthesize complex EHR data to serve as a clinically relevant risk stratification tool for MI.
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.