ArticleCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions2023
Machine learning vs. conventional methods for prediction of 30-day readmission following percutaneous mitral edge-to-edge repair.
Article in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Structural Heart Disease.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Innovation in Interventional Cardiovascular Care.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Postoperative Pneumonia Among Super-Aged Patients With Hip Fracture.Clinical interventions in aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying predictors of readmissions after mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MV-TEER) is essential for risk stratification and optimization of clinical outcomes.
aimsWe investigated the performance of machine learning [ML] algorithms vs. logistic regression in predicting readmissions after MV-TEER.
methodsWe utilized the National-Readmission-Database to identify patients who underwent MV-TEER between 2015 and 2018. The database was randomly split into training (70 %) and testing (30 %) sets. Lasso regression was used to remove non-informative variables and rank informative ones. The top 50 informative predictors were tested using 4 ML models: ML-logistic regression [LR], Naive Bayes [NB], random forest [RF], and artificial neural network [ANN]/For comparison, we used a traditional statistical method (principal component analysis logistic regression PCA-LR).
resultsA total of 9425 index hospitalizations for MV-TEER were included. Overall, the 30-day readmission rate was 14.6 %, and heart failure was the most common cause of readmission (32 %). The readmission cohort had a higher burden of comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 5 vs. 3) and frailty score (3.7 vs. 2.9), longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days), and higher rates of non-home discharges (17.4 % vs. 8.5 %). The traditional PCA-LR model yielded a modest predictive value (area under the curve [AUC] 0.615 [0.587-0.644]). Two ML algorithms demonstrated superior performance than the traditional PCA-LR model; ML-LR (AUC 0.692 [0.667-0.717]), and NB (AUC 0.724 [0.700-0.748]). RF (AUC 0.62 [0.592-0.677]) and ANN (0.65 [0.623-0.677]) had modest performance.
conclusionMachine learning algorithms may provide a useful tool for predicting readmissions after MV-TEER using administrative databases.
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.