Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732708›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Machine learning for early prediction of acute myocardial infarction or death in acute chest pain patients using electrocardiogram and blood tests at presentation.

Pontus Olsson de Capretz, Anders Björkelund, Jonas Björk, Mattias Ohlsson, Arash Mokhtari, Axel Nyström, Ulf Ekelund

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial intelligence for early diagnosis in emergency department.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pontus Olsson de CapretzDepartment of Internal and Emergency Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 15, 221 85, Lund, Sweden. pontus.olsson_de_capretz@med.lu.se.
Anders BjörkelundDepartment of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Jonas BjörkDivision of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mattias OhlssonDepartment of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Arash MokhtariDepartment of Cardiology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Axel NyströmDivision of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Internal and Emergency Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 15, 221 85, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

Hjärt-Lungfonden 2018-0173Vetenskapsrådet 2019-00198VINNOVA 2018-01942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn the present study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) models for identification of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or death within 30 days among emergency department (ED) chest pain patients. METHODS AND

resultsUsing data from 9519 consecutive ED chest pain patients, we created ML models based on logistic regression or artificial neural networks. Model inputs included sex, age, ECG and the first blood tests at patient presentation: High sensitivity TnT (hs-cTnT), glucose, creatinine, and hemoglobin. For a safe rule-out, the models were adapted to achieve a sensitivity > 99% and a negative predictive value (NPV) > 99.5% for 30-day AMI/death. For rule-in, we set the models to achieve a specificity > 90% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of > 70%. The models were also compared with the 0 h arm of the European Society of Cardiology algorithm (ESC 0 h); An initial hs-cTnT < 5 ng/L for rule-out and ≥ 52 ng/L for rule-in. A convolutional neural network was the best model and identified 55% of the patients for rule-out and 5.3% for rule-in, while maintaining the required sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV levels. ESC 0 h failed to reach these performance levels. DISCUSSION: An ML model based on age, sex, ECG and blood tests at ED arrival can identify six out of ten chest pain patients for safe early rule-out or rule-in with no need for serial blood tests. Future studies should attempt to improve these ML models further, e.g. by including additional input data.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionTroponin TBiomarkersChest PainElectrocardiographyEmergency Service, HospitalHumansPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesBiomarkersTroponin TAcute myocardial infarctionChest painDeep learningEmergency departmentHigh-sensitivity troponinMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36732708
PMCPMC9896766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.