ArticleCardiovascular toxicology2024
Development and Validation of Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict 1-Year Ischemic Stroke and Bleeding Events in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer.
Article in Cardiovascular toxicology, 2024. 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.
- Predictive Performance of HAS-BLED Score in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Interpretable machine learning models for stroke risk prediction in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction: A systematic review.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation from SEER-Medicare Database.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Stroke prediction in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation using machine learning combined clinical and left atrial appendage imaging phenotypic features.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for prognosis in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Stroke Prognosis and Prediction in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we leveraged machine learning (ML) approach to develop and validate new assessment tools for predicting stroke and bleeding among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and cancer. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients who were newly diagnosed with AFib with a record of cancer from the 2012-2018 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. The ML algorithms were developed and validated separately for each outcome by fitting elastic net, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machine (SVM), and neural network models with tenfold cross-validation (train:test = 7:3). We obtained area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and F2 score as performance metrics. Model calibration was assessed using Brier score. In sensitivity analysis, we resampled data using Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE). Among 18,388 patients with AFib and cancer, 523 (2.84%) had ischemic stroke and 221 (1.20%) had major bleeding within one year after AFib diagnosis. In prediction of ischemic stroke, RF significantly outperformed other ML models [AUC (0.916, 95% CI 0.887-0.945), sensitivity 0.868, specificity 0.801, F2 score 0.375, Brier score = 0.035]. However, the performance of ML algorithms in prediction of major bleeding was low with highest AUC achieved by RF (0.623, 95% CI 0.554-0.692). RF models performed better than CHA
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.