ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Prognostic Value of Machine-Learning-Based PRAISE Score for Ischemic and Bleeding Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of machine learning models with conventional statistical methods for prediction of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Redefining NSTE-ACS risk assessment: The synergistic power of CT-enhanced GRACE 2.0 score for advanced prognosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Transformer-DAPT: AI-based dynamic assessment of ischemic and bleeding risks in patients on DAPT following PCI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug coated balloons in acute coronary syndromes: insights from the SWEDEHEART registry.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2026Observational
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Large Language Models and Artificial Neural Networks for Assessing 1-Year Mortality in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: Analysis From the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) Database.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Machine learning approaches for risk prediction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Hs-CRP, Diabetic Status, and Adverse Events Among Patients Receiving Statin Therapy Following PCI-A Prospective Registry-Based Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Validation of machine learning-based risk stratification scores for patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- Using the Super Learner algorithm to predict risk of major adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with myocardial infarction.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Contrastive learning with transformer for adverse endpoint prediction in patients on DAPT post-coronary stent implantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Prognostic Impact of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Older Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Real-World Findings from the Lombardy Health Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The PRAISE (Prediction of Adverse Events Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome) score is a machine-learning-based model for predicting 1-year all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3/5 bleeding. Its utility in an unselected Asian population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome remains unknown. We aimed to validate the PRAISE score in a real-world Asian population. Methods and Results A total of 6412 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome were prospectively included. The PRAISE scores were compared with established scoring systems (GRACE [Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events] 2.0, PRECISE-DAPT (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), and PARIS [Patterns of Non-Adherence to Anti-Platelet Regimen in Stented Patients]) to evaluate their discrimination, calibration, and reclassification. The risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 12.24 [95% CI, 5.32-28.15]) and recurrent acute myocardial infarction (HR, 3.92 [95% CI, 1.76-8.73]) was greater in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. The C-statistics for death, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding were 0.75 (0.67-0.83), 0.61 (0.52-0.69), and 0.62 (0.46-0.77), respectively. The observed to expected ratio of death, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding was 0.427, 0.260, and 0.106, respectively. Based on the decision curve analysis, the PRAISE score displayed a slightly greater net benefit for the 1-year risk of death (5%-10%) than the GRACE score did. Conclusions The PRAISE score showed limited potential for risk prediction in our validation cohort with acute coronary syndrome. As a result, new prediction models or model refitting are required with improved discrimination and accuracy in risk prediction.
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.