ArticleBMJ open2022
Acute coronary syndrome screening in patients presenting with arteriosclerosis in health check-ups: a case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis research aimed to develop a simple and effective acute coronary syndrome (ACS) screening model in order to intervene early and focus on prevention in patients presenting with arteriosclerosis.
designA case-control study.
settingThe study used a cross-sectional survey to collect data from 2243 patients who completed anonymous electronic medical record (EMR) data and coronary angiography was gathered at a hospital in Shandong Province between December 2013 and April 2016.
participantsAdults 18 years old and above diagnosed as ACS or non-ACS according to the records in hospital EMR database, and with completed basic information (age and sex). PREDICTORS: 54 laboratory biomarkers and demographic factors (age and sex). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A dataset without missing data of all patients' laboratory indicators and demographic factors was divided into training set and validation set after being balanced. After the training set balanced, area under the curve of random forest (AUCRF) and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were used for feature extraction. Then two set random forest models were established with the different feature sets, and the process of comparison and analysis was made to evaluate models for the optimal model including sensitivity, accuracy and AUC receiver operating characteristic curves with the internal validation set.
main outcome measuresTo establish an ACS screening model.
resultsAn RF model with 31 features selected by LASSO with an AUC of 0.616 (95% CI 0.650 to 0.772), a sensitivity of 0.832 and an accuracy of 0.714 in the validation set. The other RF model with 27 features selected by AUCRF with an AUC of 0.621 (95% CI 0.664 to 0.785), a sensitivity of 0.849 and an accuracy of 0.728 in the validation set.
conclusionsThe established ACS screening model with 27 clinical features provides a better performance for practical solution in predicting ACS.
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.