ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Comparison of State-of-the-Art Neural Network Survival Models with the Pooled Cohort Equations for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Models for Time-to-Event Outcome Applied in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction.Journal of medical systems · 2024Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Addressing Current Limitations Through Emerging Technologies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Comparative performance of machine learning and deep learning models for heart disease prediction in a small clinical dataset.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2026Article
- Survival Modeling Using Deep Learning, Machine Learning, and Statistical Methods: A Comparative Analysis for Predicting Mortality After Hospital Admission.Health data science · 2026Article
- Comparison of oblique random survival forest, random survival forest, and statistical models for time-to-event data using simulation study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prognostic stratification of familial hypercholesterolaemia patients using AI algorithms: a gender-specific approach.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Exploring trade-offs in equitable stroke risk prediction with parity-constrained and race-free models.Artificial intelligence in medicine · 2025Article
- Machine learning and multi-omics integration: advancing cardiovascular translational research and clinical practice.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Transforming Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: A Review of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Innovations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predictors of mortality among neonates in Lusaka, Zambia: a comparative analysis of machine learning and traditional survival analysis techniques.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Deep learning prediction of survival in patients with heart failure using chest radiographs.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs) are race- and sex-specific Cox proportional hazards (PH)-based models used for 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction with acceptable discrimination. In recent years, neural network models have gained increasing popularity with their success in image recognition and text classification. Various survival neural network models have been proposed by combining survival analysis and neural network architecture to take advantage of the strengths from both. However, the performance of these survival neural network models compared to each other and to PCEs in ASCVD prediction is unknown.
methodsIn this study, we used 6 cohorts from the Lifetime Risk Pooling Project (with 5 cohorts as training/internal validation and one cohort as external validation) and compared the performance of the PCEs in 10-year ASCVD risk prediction with an all two-way interactions Cox PH model (Cox PH-TWI) and three state-of-the-art neural network survival models including Nnet-survival, Deepsurv, and Cox-nnet. For all the models, we used the same 7 covariates as used in the PCEs. We fitted each of the aforementioned models in white females, white males, black females, and black males, respectively. We evaluated models' internal and external discrimination power and calibration.
resultsThe training/internal validation sample comprised 23216 individuals. The average age at baseline was 57.8 years old (SD = 9.6); 16% developed ASCVD during average follow-up of 10.50 (SD = 3.02) years. Based on 10 × 10 cross-validation, the method that had the highest C-statistics was Deepsurv (0.7371) for white males, Deepsurv and Cox PH-TWI (0.7972) for white females, PCE (0.6981) for black males, and Deepsurv (0.7886) for black females. In the external validation dataset, Deepsurv (0.7032), Cox-nnet (0.7282), PCE (0.6811), and Deepsurv (0.7316) had the highest C-statistics for white male, white female, black male, and black female population, respectively. Calibration plots showed that in 10 × 10 validation, all models had good calibration in all race and sex groups. In external validation, all models overestimated the risk for 10-year ASCVD.
conclusionsWe demonstrated the use of the state-of-the-art neural network survival models in ASCVD risk prediction. Neural network survival models had similar if not superior discrimination and calibration compared to PCEs.
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.