Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35613162›Full record

ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2021

Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Diagnostic Prediction of Coronary Disease: Comparison with a Traditional Statistical Model.

Luis Correia, Daniel Lopes, João Vítor Porto, Yasmin F Lacerda, Vitor C A Correia, Gabriela O Bagano, Bruna S B Pontes, Milton Henrique Vitoria de Melo, Thomaz E A Silva, André C Meireles

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Should We "Tweak" Our Approach to Coronary Artery Disease?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Luis CorreiaEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-6910-1366
Daniel LopesEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
João Vítor PortoEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-2001-6793
Yasmin F LacerdaEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Vitor C A CorreiaEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Gabriela O BaganoEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Bruna S B PontesEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Milton Henrique Vitoria de MeloEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Thomaz E A SilvaEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
André C MeirelesEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Salvador, BA - Brasil.
Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultivariate prognostic analysis has been traditionally performed by regression models. However, many algorithms capable of translating an infinity of patterns into probabilities have emerged. The comparative accuracy of artificial intelligence and traditional statistical models has not been established in the medical field.

objectiveTo test the artificial intelligence as an accurate algorithm for predicting coronary disease in the scenario of acute chest pain and evaluate whether its performance is superior to traditional statistical model.

methodsA consecutive sample of 962 patients admitted with chest pain was analyzed. Two probabilistic models of coronary disease were built using the first two-thirds of patients: a machine learning algorithm and a traditional logistic model. The performance of these two predictive strategies were evaluated in the remaining third of patients. The final logistic regression model had significant variables only, at the 5% significance level.

resultsThe training sample had an average age of 59 ± 15 years, 58% males, and a 52% prevalence of coronary disease. The logistic model was composed of nine independent predictors. The machine learning algorithm was composed of all candidates for predictors. In the test sample, the area under the ROC curve for prediction of coronary disease was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.77 - 0.86) for the machine learning algorithm, similar to that obtained in logistic model (0.82; 95% CI = 0.77 - 0.87), p = 0.68.

conclusionThe present study suggests that an accurate machine learning prediction tool did not prove to be superior to the statistical model of logistic regression.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCoronary Artery DiseaseAdultAgedAlgorithmsChest PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID35613162
PMCPMC8757162
OpenAlexW3215470714

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.