ArticleBMJ open2024
Predictive performance of machine learning compared to statistical methods in time-to-event analysis of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable artificial intelligence models in predicting major cardiovascular events: insights from the PolyIran and PolyPars prospective studies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prediction Models for Postoperative Delirium of Cardiovascular Surgery (PODOCVS): Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death, warranting effective management and prevention measures. Risk prediction tools are indispensable for directing primary and secondary prevention strategies for CVD and are critical for estimating CVD risk. Machine learning (ML) methodologies have experienced significant advancements across numerous practical domains in recent years. Several ML and statistical models predicting CVD time-to-event outcomes have been developed. However, it is not known as to which of the two model types-ML and statistical models-have higher discrimination and calibration in this regard. Hence, this planned work aims to systematically review studies that compare ML with statistical methods in terms of their predictive abilities in the case of time-to-event data with censoring.
methodsOriginal research articles published as prognostic prediction studies, which involved the development and/or validation of a prognostic model, within a peer-reviewed journal, using cohort or experimental design with at least a 12-month follow-up period will be systematically reviewed. The review process will adhere to the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review, as it will exclusively use data from published studies. The findings of this study will be published in an open-access journal and disseminated at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023484178.
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.