ArticleScientific reports2022
In-hospital risk stratification algorithm of Asian elderly patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mortality after Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Risk-based evaluation of machine learning-based classification methods used for medical devices.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Ensemble machine learning for predicting in-hospital mortality in Asian women with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- A comprehensive review of machine learning algorithms and their application in geriatric medicine: present and future.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Review
- Machine learning prediction of mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited research has been conducted in Asian elderly patients (aged 65 years and above) for in-hospital mortality prediction after an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) using Deep Learning (DL) and Machine Learning (ML). We used DL and ML to predict in-hospital mortality in Asian elderly STEMI patients and compared it to a conventional risk score for myocardial infraction outcomes. Malaysia's National Cardiovascular Disease Registry comprises an ethnically diverse Asian elderly population (3991 patients). 50 variables helped in establishing the in-hospital death prediction model. The TIMI score was used to predict mortality using DL and feature selection methods from ML algorithms. The main performance metric was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The DL and ML model constructed using ML feature selection outperforms the conventional risk scoring score, TIMI (AUC 0.75). DL built from ML features (AUC ranging from 0.93 to 0.95) outscored DL built from all features (AUC 0.93). The TIMI score underestimates mortality in the elderly. TIMI predicts 18.4% higher mortality than the DL algorithm (44.7%). All ML feature selection algorithms identify age, fasting blood glucose, heart rate, Killip class, oral hypoglycemic agent, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol as common predictors of mortality in the elderly. In a multi-ethnic population, DL outperformed the TIMI risk score in classifying elderly STEMI patients. ML improves death prediction by identifying separate characteristics in older Asian populations. Continuous testing and validation will improve future risk classification, management, and results.
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.