Trial reportPeerJ2024
Establishment and validation of a heart failure risk prediction model for elderly patients after coronary rotational atherectomy based on machine learning.
Trial report in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretable prediction of anxiety symptoms during pregnancy via machine learning and SHAP.Archives of women's mental health · 2026Article
- Establishment and validation of a machine learning-based predictive model for in-hospital mortality risk in acute myocardial infarction patients complicated with diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Malnutrition risk factors and a pre-post evaluation of a multicomponent management program in older inpatients with chronic heart failure: a single-centre retrospective study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based hybrid risk estimation system (ERES) in cardiac surgery: Supplementary insights from the ASA score analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a heart failure risk prediction model for elderly patients after coronary rotational atherectomy based on machine learning methods. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to select 303 elderly patients with severe coronary calcification as the study subjects. According to the occurrence of postoperative heart failure, the study subjects were divided into the heart failure group ( Result: A total of 17.49% of 303 patients occured postoperative heart failure. The AUC of LR, XGBoost, SVM, and LightGBM models in the training set were 0.872, 1.000, 0.699, and 1.000, respectively. After 10 fold cross validation, the AUC was 0.863, 0.972, 0.696, and 0.963 in the training set, respectively. Among them, XGBoost had the highest AUC and better predictive performance, while SVM models had the worst performance. The XGBoost model also showed good predictive performance in the validation set (AUC = 0.972, 95% CI [0.951-0.994]). The Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) method suggested that the six characteristic variables of blood cholesterol, serum creatinine, fasting blood glucose, age, triglyceride and NT-proBNP were important positive factors for the occurrence of heart failure, and LVEF was important negative factors for the occurrence of heart failure. Conclusion: The seven characteristic variables of blood cholesterol, blood creatinine, fasting blood glucose, NT-proBNP, age, triglyceride and LVEF are all important factors affecting the occurrence of heart failure. The prediction model of heart failure risk for elderly patients after CRA based on the XGBoost algorithm is superior to SVM, LightGBM and the traditional LR model. This model could be used to assist clinical decision-making and improve the adverse outcomes of patients after CRA.
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.