ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2021
Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm for Diagnostic Prediction of Coronary Disease: Comparison with a Traditional Statistical Model.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing machine learning models and traditional approaches for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Personalized Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Value and Limitations of Predictive Models.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Predicting the Need for Blood Transfusions in Cardiac Surgery: A Comparison between Machine Learning Algorithms and Established Risk Scores in the Brazilian Population.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Should We "Tweak" Our Approach to Coronary Artery Disease?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Vascular Implications of COVID-19: Role of Radiological Imaging, Artificial Intelligence, and Tissue Characterization: A Special Report.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
- Artificial Algorithms Outperform Traditional Models in Predicting Coronary Artery Disease.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.