ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Predicting acute kidney injury risk in acute myocardial infarction patients: An artificial intelligence model using medical information mart for intensive care databases.
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 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive performance of machine learning models for kidney complications following coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- An Explainable Machine Learning Model for Early Prediction of Incident Myocardial Injury in Patients With Severe Fever With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome.Journal of medical virology · 2026Article
- Review
- Machine learning-based risk prediction model development for acute kidney injury in type 2 myocardial infarction patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Sex differences in outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Large-scale prospective serum metabolomic profiling reveals candidate predictive biomarkers for suspected preeclampsia patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Model-Based Prediction of In-Hospital Acute Kidney Injury Risk in Acute Aortic Dissection Patients.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning for predicting acute myocardial infarction in patients with sepsis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Serum Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio: A Novel Predictor of Pulmonary Infection in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Article
- U-shaped association between serum calcium and in-hospital mortality in patients with congestive heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Observational
- Article
- Association between serum chloride and in-hospital mortality in congestive heart failure with diabetes: Data from the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
- Association between triglyceride glucose and acute kidney injury in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a propensity score‑matched analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- [Artificial intelligence and acute kidney injury].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Review
- Article
- Development and validation of a novel combinatorial nomogram model to predict in-hospital deaths in heart failure patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Exploring the utility of a latent variable as comprehensive inflammatory prognostic index in critically ill patients with cerebral infarction.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Dapagliflozin reduces risk of heart failure rehospitalization in diabetic acute myocardial infarction patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Predictive models based on machine learning have been widely used in clinical practice. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are prone to the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), which results in a poor prognosis for the patient. The aim of this study was to develop a machine learning predictive model for the identification of AKI in AMI patients. Methods: Patients with AMI who had been registered in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III and IV database were enrolled. The primary outcome was the occurrence of AKI during hospitalization. We developed Random Forests (RF) model, Naive Bayes (NB) model, Support Vector Machine (SVM) model, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (xGBoost) model, Decision Trees (DT) model, and Logistic Regression (LR) models with AMI patients in MIMIC-IV database. The importance ranking of all variables was obtained by the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method. AMI patients in MIMIC-III databases were used for model evaluation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare the performance of each model. Results: A total of 3,882 subjects with AMI were enrolled through screening of the MIMIC database, of which 1,098 patients (28.2%) developed AKI. We randomly assigned 70% of the patients in the MIMIC-IV data to the training cohort, which is used to develop models in the training cohort. The remaining 30% is allocated to the testing cohort. Meanwhile, MIMIC-III patient data performs the external validation function of the model. 3,882 patients and 37 predictors were included in the analysis for model construction. The top 5 predictors were serum creatinine, activated partial prothrombin time, blood glucose concentration, platelets, and atrial fibrillation, (SHAP values are 0.670, 0.444, 0.398, 0.389, and 0.381, respectively). In the testing cohort, using top 20 important features, the models of RF, NB, SVM, xGBoost, DT model, and LR obtained AUC of 0.733, 0.739, 0.687, 0.689, 0.663, and 0.677, respectively. Placing RF models of number of different variables on the external validation cohort yielded their AUC of 0.711, 0.754, 0.778, 0.781, and 0.777, respectively. Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms, particularly the random forest algorithm, have improved the accuracy of risk stratification for AKI in AMI patients and are applied to accurately identify the risk of AKI in AMI patients.
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.