ArticlePloS one2024
Development and web deployment of prediction model for pulmonary arterial pressure in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension using machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) is a key index for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Using machine learning, we attempted to construct an accurate prediction model for mPAP in patients with CTEPH.
methodsA total of 136 patients diagnosed with CTEPH were included, for whom mPAP was measured. The following patient data were used as explanatory variables in the model: basic patient information (age and sex), blood tests (brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)), echocardiography (tricuspid valve pressure gradient (TRPG)), and chest radiography (cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), right second arc ratio, and presence of avascular area). Seven machine learning methods including linear regression were used for the multivariable prediction models. Additionally, prediction models were constructed using the AutoML software. Among the 136 patients, 2/3 and 1/3 were used as training and validation sets, respectively. The average of R squared was obtained from 10 different data splittings of the training and validation sets.
resultsThe optimal machine learning model was linear regression (averaged R squared, 0.360). The optimal combination of explanatory variables with linear regression was age, BNP level, TRPG level, and CTR (averaged R squared, 0.388). The R squared of the optimal multivariable linear regression model was higher than that of the univariable linear regression model with only TRPG.
conclusionWe constructed a more accurate prediction model for mPAP in patients with CTEPH than a model of TRPG only. The prediction performance of our model was improved by selecting the optimal machine learning method and combination of explanatory variables.
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.