ArticleClinical cardiology2023
Using machine learning to predict adverse events in acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective study.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 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
- Integration of Federated Learning and Blockchain in Health Care: Tutorial on Medical Data, Architectures, Privacy, Security, and Regulatory Compliance.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Tools in Myocardial Infarction Prognosis: Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- Machine Learning Approach on Predictive Model Establishment for In-Hospital Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Solutions for Databases With Dimensionality Reduction and Class Imbalance.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular procedures: a bibliometric and visual analysis study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Comparing Single-Hospital and National Models to Predict 30-Day Inpatient Mortality.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning Applications in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Diagnosis, Outcomes and Management.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Population-specific genetic differences of acute coronary syndrome in Han and Uyghur Chinese.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Using machine learning to predict adverse events in acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective study.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUp to 30% of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) die from adverse events, mainly renal failure and myocardial infarction (MI). Accurate prediction of adverse events is therefore essential to improve patient prognosis. HYPOTHESIS: Machine learning (ML) methods can accurately identify risk factors and predict adverse events.
methodsA total of 5240 patients diagnosed with ACS who underwent PCI were enrolled and followed for 1 year. Support vector machine, extreme gradient boosting, adaptive boosting, K-nearest neighbors, random forest, decision tree, categorical boosting, and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) were developed with 10-fold cross-validation to predict acute kidney injury (AKI), MI during hospitalization, and all-cause mortality within 1 year. Features with mean Shapley Additive exPlanations score >0.1 were screened by XGBoost method as input for model construction. Accuracy, F1 score, area under curve (AUC), and precision/recall curve were used to evaluate the performance of the models.
resultsOverall, 2.6% of patients died within 1 year, 4.2% had AKI, and 4.7% had MI during hospitalization. The LDA model was superior to the other seven ML models, with an AUC of 0.83, F1 score of 0.90, accuracy of 0.85, recall of 0.85, specificity of 0.68, and precision of 0.99 in predicting all-cause mortality. For AKI and MI, the LDA model also showed good discriminating capacity with an AUC of 0.74.
conclusionThe LDA model, using easily accessible variables from in-hospital patients, showed the potential to effectively predict the risk of adverse events and mortality within 1 year in ACS patients after PCI.
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.