ArticlePloS one2022
In-hospital mortality risk stratification of Asian ACS patients with artificial intelligence algorithm.
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 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- In-hospital mortality risk prediction models for patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Evolution of Risk Measurement Techniques and Assessment of Their Effectiveness (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Predicting mortality risk in hospitalized ACS patients with hypertensive comorbidity: an interpretable machine learning approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of mortality risk from air pollution-induced acute coronary syndrome in the Western Pacific region.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools in Myocardial Infarction Prognosis: Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- The efficacy of artificial intelligence in predicting mortality rate and cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome patients.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Review
- Predicting rapid kidney function decline in middle-aged and elderly Chinese adults using machine learning techniques.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Prediction of in-hospital death among patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital over the first 10 years: a machine learning approach.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Enhanced cardiovascular risk prediction in the Western Pacific: A machine learning approach tailored to the Malaysian population.PloS one · 2025Article
- Optimizing Acute Coronary Syndrome Patient Treatment: Leveraging Gated Transformer Models for Precise Risk Prediction and Management.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence based prediction model of in-hospital mortality among females with acute coronary syndrome: for the Jerusalem Platelets Thrombosis and Intervention in Cardiology (JUPITER-12) Study Group.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Mapping the Heartbeat of America with ChatGPT-4: Unpacking the Interplay of Social Vulnerability, Digital Literacy, and Cardiovascular Mortality in County Residency Choices.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Heart Failure Emergency Readmission Prediction Using Stacking Machine Learning Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparative evaluation of machine learning models versus TIMI score in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional risk score for predicting in-hospital mortality following Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) is not catered for Asian patients and requires different types of scoring algorithms for STEMI and NSTEMI patients.
objectiveTo derive a single algorithm using deep learning and machine learning for the prediction and identification of factors associated with in-hospital mortality in Asian patients with ACS and to compare performance to a conventional risk score.
methodsThe Malaysian National Cardiovascular Disease Database (NCVD) registry, is a multi-ethnic, heterogeneous database spanning from 2006-2017. It was used for in-hospital mortality model development with 54 variables considered for patients with STEMI and Non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Mortality prediction was analyzed using feature selection methods with machine learning algorithms. Deep learning algorithm using features selected from machine learning was compared to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score.
resultsA total of 68528 patients were included in the analysis. Deep learning models constructed using all features and selected features from machine learning resulted in higher performance than machine learning and TIMI risk score (p < 0.0001 for all). The best model in this study is the combination of features selected from the SVM algorithm with a deep learning classifier. The DL (SVM selected var) algorithm demonstrated the highest predictive performance with the least number of predictors (14 predictors) for in-hospital prediction of STEMI patients (AUC = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96). In NSTEMI in-hospital prediction, DL (RF selected var) (AUC = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96, reported slightly higher AUC compared to DL (SVM selected var) (AUC = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.94-0.95). There was no significant difference between DL (SVM selected var) algorithm and DL (RF selected var) algorithm (p = 0.5). When compared to the DL (SVM selected var) model, the TIMI score underestimates patients' risk of mortality. TIMI risk score correctly identified 13.08% of the high-risk patient's non-survival vs 24.7% for the DL model and 4.65% vs 19.7% of the high-risk patient's non-survival for NSTEMI. Age, heart rate, Killip class, cardiac catheterization, oral hypoglycemia use and antiarrhythmic agent were found to be common predictors of in-hospital mortality across all ML feature selection models in this study. The final algorithm was converted into an online tool with a database for continuous data archiving for prospective validation.
conclusionsACS patients were better classified using a combination of machine learning and deep learning in a multi-ethnic Asian population when compared to TIMI scoring. Machine learning enables the identification of distinct factors in individual Asian populations to improve mortality prediction. Continuous testing and validation will allow for better risk stratification in the future, potentially altering management and outcomes.
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.