Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37072766›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Machine learning prediction of mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Mariana Oliveira, Joana Seringa, Fausto José Pinto, Roberto Henriques, Teresa Magalhães

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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Profiling of Cardiogenic Shock: Incorporating Machine Learning Into Bedside Management.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Mariana OliveiraNOVA National School of Public Health, Universidade NOVA Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joana SeringaNOVA National School of Public Health, Universidade NOVA Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Fausto José PintoServiço de Cardiologia, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Norte (CHULN), CAML, CCUL, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Roberto HenriquesNOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 1070-312, Lisbon, Portugal. roberto@novaims.unl.pt.
Teresa MagalhãesNOVA National School of Public Health, Public Health Research Centre, Comprehensive Health Research Center, CHRC, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) is the leading cause of death in Portugal and globally. The present investigation created a model based on machine learning for predictive analysis of mortality in patients with AMI upon admission, using different variables to analyse their impact on predictive models.

methodsThree experiments were built for mortality in AMI in a Portuguese hospital between 2013 and 2015 using various machine learning techniques. The three experiments differed in the number and type of variables used. We used a discharged patients' episodes database, including administrative data, laboratory data, and cardiac and physiologic test results, whose primary diagnosis was AMI.

resultsResults show that for Experiment 1, Stochastic Gradient Descent was more suitable than the other classification models, with a classification accuracy of 80%, a recall of 77%, and a discriminatory capacity with an AUC of 79%. Adding new variables to the models increased AUC in Experiment 2 to 81% for the Support Vector Machine method. In Experiment 3, we obtained an AUC, in Stochastic Gradient Descent, of 88% and a recall of 80%. These results were obtained when applying feature selection and the SMOTE technique to overcome imbalanced data.

conclusionsOur results show that the introduction of new variables, namely laboratory data, impacts the performance of the methods, reinforcing the premise that no single approach is adapted to all situations regarding AMI mortality prediction. Instead, they must be selected, considering the context and the information available. Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning with clinical decision-making can transform care, making clinical practice more efficient, faster, personalised, and effective. AI emerges as an alternative to traditional models since it has the potential to explore large amounts of information automatically and systematically.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMyocardial InfarctionClinical Decision-MakingHumansMachine LearningPortugalAcute Myocardial InfarctionCardiovascular diseasesMachine learningPredictive models

Identifiers

PMID37072766
PMCPMC10111317

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.