Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38499940›Full record

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.

Bang Truong, Jingyi Zheng, Lori Hornsby, Brent Fox, Chiahung Chou, Jingjing Qian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence in clinical thrombosis and hemostasis: A review.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors.

Bang TruongDepartment of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy, 4306d Walker Building, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8654-5444
Jingyi ZhengDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Auburn University College of Sciences and Mathematics, Auburn, AL, USA.
Lori HornsbyDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy, Auburn, AL, USA.
Brent FoxDepartment of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy, 4306d Walker Building, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA.
Chiahung ChouDepartment of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy, 4306d Walker Building, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA.
Jingjing QianDepartment of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy, 4306d Walker Building, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA. jzq0004@auburn.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4624-9963

Funding

NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800009CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800009INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800015CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800015INCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800032CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201800032I
6 · The paper itself

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

Atrial FibrillationIschemic StrokeNeoplasmsStrokeAgedAlgorithmsHemorrhageHumansMachine LearningMedicareRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUnited StatesAFibBleedingCancerMachine learningPredictionStroke

Identifiers

PMID38499940
PMCPMC10998799

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.