ArticlePloS one2022
Robust prognostic prediction model developed with integrated biological markers for acute myocardial infarction.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic comparison of short-term and long-term mortality prediction in acute myocardial infarction using machine learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Observational
- Adaptability of prognostic prediction models for patients with acute coronary syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- Development of a Prediction Model for Healthy Life Years Without Activity Limitation: National Cross-sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commonly used prediction methods for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were created before contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention was recognized as the primary therapy. Although several studies have used machine learning techniques for prognostic prediction of patients with AMI, its clinical application has not been achieved. Here, we developed an online application tool using a machine learning model to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI. A total of 2,553 cases of ST-elevation AMI were assigned to 80% training subset for cross validation and 20% test subset for model performance evaluation. We implemented random forest classifier for the binary classification of in-hospital mortality. The selected best feature set consisted of ten clinical and biological markers including max creatine phosphokinase, hemoglobin, heart rate, creatinine, systolic blood pressure, blood sugar, age, Killip class, white blood cells, and c-reactive protein. Our model achieved high performance: the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve for the test subset, 0.95: sensitivity, 0.89: specificity, 0.91: precision, 0.43: accuracy, 0.91 respectively, which outperformed common scoring methods. The freely available application tool for prognostic prediction can contribute to risk triage and decision-making in patient-centered modern clinical practice for AMI.
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.