Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37333431›Full record

ArticleInnovation (Cambridge (Mass.))2023

Inflammatory risk stratification individualizes anti-inflammatory pharmacotherapy for acute type A aortic dissection.

Hong Liu, Haiyang Li, Lu Han, Yingyuan Zhang, Ying Wu, Liang Hong, Jinong Yang, Jisheng Zhong, Yuqi Wang, Dongkai Wu and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

22 authors.

Hong LiuDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Haiyang LiDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Lu HanDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100043, China.
Yingyuan ZhangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Ying WuDepartment of Laboratory, First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou 515041, China.
Liang HongDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210012, China.
Jinong YangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266003, China.
Jisheng ZhongDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xiamen Cardiovascular Hospital, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361004, China.
Yuqi WangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Teda International Cardiovascular Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Tianjin 300457, China.
Dongkai WuDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, China.
Guoliang FanDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shanghai East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200120, China.
Junquan ChenDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Tianjin Chest Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300222, China.
Shengqiang ZhangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu 233099, China.
Xingxing PengDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin 541001, China.
Zhihua ZengDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330008, China.
Zhiwei TangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Zhanjie LuJiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Research Institute of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing 210009, China.
Lizhong SunDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Sichong QianDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Yongfeng ShaoDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.
Hongjia ZhangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.
Additive Anti-inflammatory Action for Aortopathy & Arteriopathy (5A) Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The systemic benefits of anti-inflammatory pharmacotherapy vary across cardiovascular diseases in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the application of artificial intelligence to acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients to determine the optimal target population who would benefit from urinary trypsin inhibitor use (ulinastatin). Patient characteristics at admission in the Chinese multicenter 5A study database (2016-2022) were used to develop an inflammatory risk model to predict multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The population (5,126 patients from 15 hospitals) was divided into a 60% sample for model derivation, with the remaining 40% used for model validation. Next, we trained an extreme gradient-boosting algorithm (XGBoost) to develop a parsimonious patient-level inflammatory risk model for predicting MODS. Finally, a top-six-feature tool consisting of estimated glomerular filtration rate, leukocyte count, platelet count, De Ritis ratio, hemoglobin, and albumin was built and showed adequate predictive performance regarding its discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility in derivation and validation cohorts. By individual risk probability and treatment effect, our analysis identified individuals with differential benefit from ulinastatin use (risk ratio [RR] for MODS of RR 0.802 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.656, 0.981] for the predicted risk of 23.5%-41.6%; RR 1.196 [0.698-2.049] for the predicted risk of <23.5%; RR 0.922 [95% CI 0.816-1.042] for the predicted risk of >41.6%). By using artificial intelligence to define an individual's benefit based on the risk probability and treatment effect prediction, we found that individual differences in risk probability likely have important effects on ulinastatin treatment and outcome, which highlights the need for individualizing the selection of optimal anti-inflammatory treatment goals for ATAAD patients.

Identifiers

PMID37333431
PMCPMC10276284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.