ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2023
Development and validation of a predictive models for predicting the cardiac events within one year for patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention procedure at IJN.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 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
- Predicting Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Multiethnic Southeast Asian Population: Insights From Machine Learning.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Article
- Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Innovation in Interventional Cardiovascular Care.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Machine Learning Applications in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Diagnosis, Outcomes and Management.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common treatment modality for coronary artery disease. Accurate prediction of patients at risk for complications and hospital readmission after PCI could improve the overall clinical management. We aimed to develop and validate predictive models to predict any cardiac event within a year post PCI procedure.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the National Cardiovascular Disease (NCVD)-PCI registry. The data collected (N = 28,007) were split into training set (n = 24,409) and testing set (n = 3598). Four predictive models (logistic regression [LR], random forest method, support vector machine [SVM], and artificial neural network) were developed and validated. The outcome on risk prediction were compared.
resultsThe demographic and clinical features of patients in the training and testing cohorts were similar. Patients had mean age ± standard deviation of 58.15 ± 10.13 years at admission with a male majority (82.66%). In over half of the procedures (50.61%), patients had chronic stable angina. Within 1 year of follow up mortality, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and composite event of mortality and TVR were 3.92%, 9.48%, and 12.98% respectively. LR was the best model in predicting mortality event within 1-year post-PCI (AUC: 0.820). SVM had the highest discrimination power for both TVR event (AUC: 0.720) and composite event of mortality and TVR (AUC: 0.720).
conclusionsThis study successfully identified optimal prediction models with the good discriminatory ability for mortality outcome and good discrimination ability for TVR and composite event of mortality and TVR with a simple machine learning framework.
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.