Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35911549›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Using Machine Learning.

Yale Chang, Corneliu Antonescu, Shreyas Ravindranath, Junzi Dong, Mingyu Lu, Francesco Vicario, Lisa Wondrely, Pam Thompson, Dennis Swearingen, Deepak Acharya

Abstract 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock.European journal of heart failure · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

10 authors.

Yale ChangPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Corneliu AntonescuDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Banner Health, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Shreyas RavindranathPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Junzi DongPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Mingyu LuDepartment of Computer Science, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Francesco VicarioPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Lisa WondrelyPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Pam ThompsonDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Banner Health, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Dennis SwearingenDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Banner Health, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Deepak AcharyaDivision of Cardiovascular Disease, Banner Health, Tucson, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe condition with in-hospital mortality of up to 50%. Patients who develop CS may have previous cardiac history, but that may not always be the case, adding to the challenges in optimally identifying and managing these patients. Patients may present to a medical facility with CS or develop CS while in the emergency department (ED), in a general inpatient ward (WARD) or in the critical care unit (CC). While different clinical pathways for management exist once CS is recognized, there are challenges in identifying the patients in a timely manner, in all settings, in a timeframe that will allow proper management. We therefore developed and evaluated retrospectively a machine learning model based on the XGBoost (XGB) algorithm which runs automatically on patient data from the electronic health record (EHR). The algorithm was trained on 8 years of de-identified data (from 2010 to 2017) collected from a large regional healthcare system. The input variables include demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, some orders, and specific pre-existing diagnoses. The model was designed to make predictions 2 h prior to the need of first CS intervention (inotrope, vasopressor, or mechanical circulatory support). The algorithm achieves an overall area under curve (AUC) of 0.87 (0.81 in CC, 0.84 in ED, 0.97 in WARD), which is considered useful for clinical use. The algorithm can be refined based on specific elements defining patient subpopulations, for example presence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF), further increasing its precision when a patient has these conditions. The top-contributing risk factors learned by the model are consistent with existing clinical findings. Our conclusion is that a useful machine learning model can be used to predict the development of CS. This manuscript describes the main steps of the development process and our results.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockclinical decision supportearly warning systemelectronic health recordsmachine learningsubpopulation analysis

Identifiers

PMID35911549
PMCPMC9326048

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.