Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36135455›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2022

Toward Better Risk Stratification for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients: Implications of Explainable Machine Learning Models.

Yu Deng, Sijing Cheng, Hao Huang, Xi Liu, Yu Yu, Min Gu, Chi Cai, Xuhua Chen, Hongxia Niu, Wei Hua

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Novel Electroactive Therapeutic Platforms for Cardiac Arrhythmia Management.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  3. Incidence and risk factors for first and recurrent ICD shock therapy in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yu DengThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Sijing ChengThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Hao HuangThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Xi LiuThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Yu YuThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Min GuThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Chi CaiThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Xuhua ChenThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Hongxia NiuThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Wei HuaThe Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, No.167 North Lishi Road, Beijing 100037, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current guideline-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implants fail to meet the demands for precision medicine. Machine learning (ML) designed for survival analysis might facilitate personalized risk stratification. We aimed to develop explainable ML models predicting mortality and the first appropriate shock and compare these to standard Cox proportional hazards (CPH) regression in ICD recipients. Methods and Results: Forty-five routine clinical variables were collected. Four fine-tuned ML approaches (elastic net Cox regression, random survival forests, survival support vector machine, and XGBoost) were applied and compared with the CPH model on the test set using Harrell’s C-index. Of 887 adult patients enrolled, 199 patients died (5.0 per 100 person-years) and 265 first appropriate shocks occurred (12.4 per 100 person-years) during the follow-up. Patients were randomly split into training (75%) and test (25%) sets. Among ML models predicting death, XGBoost achieved the highest accuracy and outperformed the CPH model (C-index: 0.794 vs. 0.760, p < 0.001). For appropriate shock, survival support vector machine showed the highest accuracy, although not statistically different from the CPH model (0.621 vs. 0.611, p = 0.243). The feature contribution of ML models assessed by SHAP values at individual and overall levels was in accordance with established knowledge. Accordingly, a bi-dimensional risk matrix integrating death and shock risk was built. This risk stratification framework further classified patients with different likelihoods of benefiting from ICD implant. Conclusions: Explainable ML models offer a promising tool to identify different risk scenarios in ICD-eligible patients and aid clinical decision making. Further evaluation is needed.

Indexed as

first appropriate shockimplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorsmachine learningmortalitypersonalized risk stratificationShapley Additive exPlanations values

Identifiers

PMID36135455
PMCPMC9501472
OpenAlexW4296295875

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.