Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35600489›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Machine Learning for Prediction of Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.

Fangning Rong, Huaqiang Xiang, Lu Qian, Yangjing Xue, Kangting Ji, Ripen Yin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fangning RongDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Huaqiang XiangDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Lu QianDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yangjing XueDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Kangting JiDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Ripen YinDepartment of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Second Affiliated Hospital & Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University · CNWenzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) in the elderly remains a major clinical challenge. Existing clinical prediction models have not performed well in assessing the prognosis of elderly patients with CS. This study aims to build a predictive model, which could better predict the 30-day mortality of elderly patients with CS. Methods: We extracted data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III version 1.4 (MIMIC-III) as the training set and the data of validation sets were collected from the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. Three models, including the cox regression model, the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression model, and the CoxBoost model, were established using the training set. Through the comparison of area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), C index, net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and median improvement in risk score, the best model was selected. Then for external validation, compared the best model with the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPSII) and the CardShock risk score. Results: A total of 919 patients were included in the study, of which 804 patients were in the training set and 115 patients were in the verification set. Using the training set, we built three models: the cox regression model including 6 predictors, the LASSO regression model including 4 predictors, and the CoxBoost model including 16 predictors. Among them, the CoxBoost model had good discrimination [AUC: 0.730; C index: 0.6958 (0.6657, 0.7259)]. Compared with the CoxBoost model, the NRI, IDI, and median improvement in risk score of other models were all<0. In the validation set, the CoxBoost model was also well-discriminated [AUC: 0.770; C index: 0.7713 (0.6751, 0.8675)]. Compared with the CoxBoost model, the NRI, IDI, and median improvement in risk score of SAPS II and the CardShock risk score were all < 0. And we constructed a dynamic nomogram to visually display the model. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study showed that in predicting the 30-day mortality of elderly CS patients, the CoxBoost model was superior to the Cox regression model, LASSO regression model, SAPS II, and the CardShock risk score.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockCoxBoostintensive care unitmachine learningpredictive model

Identifiers

PMID35600489
PMCPMC9120613
OpenAlexW4229041434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.