ArticlePloS one2022
Prediction of disorders with significant coronary lesions using machine learning in patients admitted with chest symptom.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of Artificial Intelligence Prediction of Epicardial Coronary Artery Spasm in Patients Without Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of clinical feature-based machine learning models for predicting myofascial pelvic pain syndrome: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe early prediction of significant coronary artery lesion, including coronary vasospasm, have yet to be studied. It is essential to discern the disorders with significant coronary lesions (SCDs) requiring coronary angiography from mimicking disease. We aimed to determine which of all clinical variables were more important using conventional logistic regression (cLR) and machine learning (ML). MATERIALS: Of 3382 patients with chest pain/discomfort or dyspnea in whom CAG was performed, 1893 were included. All clinical data were divided as follows (i): Demographics, history, and physical examination; (ii): (i) plus electrocardiography; and (iii): (ii) plus echocardiography, and analyzed by cLR and ML.
resultsIn multivariable analysis via cLR, the AUC and accuracy of the model using the final 20 variables were 0.795 and 72.62%, respectively. In multivariable analysis via ML, the best AUCs in the internal validation were 0.8 with (i), 0.81 with (ii), 0.83 with (iii), and in external validation, the best AUCs were 0.71 with (i), 0.74 with (ii), and 0.79 with (iii). The best AUCs and accuracy of the fittest model including 21 importance variables by ML were 0.81 and 72.48% in internal validation; and 0.75 and 70.5% in external validation, respectively. The importance variables in ML and cLR were similar, but slightly different and the additional discriminators via ML were found.
conclusionThe assessment using the fittest importance variables can assist physicians in differentiating mimicking diseases in which coronary angiography may not be required in patients suspected of having acute coronary syndrome in emergency department.
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.