Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38012550›Full record

ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2023

Machine learning for predicting intrahospital mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Panke Chen, Bine Wang, Li Zhao, Shuai Ma, Yanping Wang, Yunyue Zhu, Xin Zeng, Zhixun Bai, Bei Shi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Panke Chen *Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Bine Wang *Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Li Zhao *Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Shuai MaDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Yanping WangDepartment of the Clinical Institute, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Yunyue ZhuDepartment of the Clinical Institute, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Xin ZengDepartment of the Clinical Institute, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Zhixun BaiDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China. zhixunbai@zmu.edu.cn.
Bei ShiDepartment of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China. shibei2147@163.com.
Zunyi Medical University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82260106The Project of Guizhou Provincial Health Commission gzwkj2021-138The Special Project of Innovation and Exploration in Zunyi Medical University 2020-024the Technological Project of Zunyi Science and Technology Bureau HZ-2021- No. 218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era of increasing need for precision medicine, machine learning has shown promise in making accurate acute myocardial infarction outcome predictions. The accurate assessment of high-risk patients is a crucial component of clinical practice. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complicates ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and currently, there is no practical method for predicting or monitoring patient prognosis. The objective of the study was to compare the ability of machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality among STEMI patients with T2DM. We compared six machine learning models, including random forest (RF), CatBoost classifier (CatBoost), naive Bayes (NB), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), gradient boosting classifier (GBC), and logistic regression (LR), with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score. From January 2016 to January 2020, we enrolled patients aged > 18 years with STEMI and T2DM at the Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University. Overall, 438 patients were enrolled in the study [median age, 62 years; male, 312 (71%); death, 42 (9.5%]). All patients underwent emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 306 patients with STEMI who underwent PCI were enrolled as the training cohort. Six machine learning algorithms were used to establish the best-fit risk model. An additional 132 patients were recruited as a test cohort to validate the model. The ability of the GRACE score and six algorithm models to predict in-hospital mortality was evaluated. Seven models, including the GRACE risk model, showed an area under the curve (AUC) between 0.73 and 0.91. Among all models, with an accuracy of 0.93, AUC of 0.92, precision of 0.79, and F1 value of 0.57, the CatBoost model demonstrated the best predictive performance. A machine learning algorithm, such as the CatBoost model, may prove clinically beneficial and assist clinicians in tailoring precise management of STEMI patients and predicting in-hospital mortality complicated by T2DM.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Percutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionBayes TheoremHospital MortalityHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentDiabetes mellitusMachine learningMortalityST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID38012550
PMCPMC10683359
OpenAlexW4389043104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.