ArticleHeliyon2023
Machine learning and physical based modeling for cardiac hypertrophy.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Predict the Risk of Medical Decision-Making Delay in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients From Multicenter Tertiary Hospitals in China.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Realistic Aspects of Cardiac Ultrasound in Rats: Practical Tips for Improved Examination.Journal of imaging · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Predicting the long-term expansion and remodeling of the left ventricle in patients is challenging task but it has the potential to be clinically very useful. Methods: In our study, we present machine learning models based on random forests, gradient boosting, and neural networks, used to track cardiac hypertrophy. We collected data from multiple patients, and then the model was trained using the patient's medical history and present level of cardiac health. We also demonstrate a physical-based model, using the finite element procedure to simulate the development of cardiac hypertrophy. Results: Our models were used to forecast the evolution of hypertrophy over six years. The machine learning model and finite element model provided similar results. Conclusions: The finite element model is much slower, but it's more accurate compared to the machine learning model since it's based on physical laws guiding the hypertrophy process. On the other hand, the machine learning model is fast but the results can be less trustworthy in some cases. Both of our models, enable us to monitor the development of the disease. Because of its speed machine learning model is more likely to be used in clinical practice. Further improvements to our machine learning model could be achieved by collecting data from finite element simulations, adding them to the dataset, and retraining the model. This can result in a fast and more accurate model combining the advantages of physical-based and machine learning modeling.
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.