ArticleJournal of inflammation research2024
Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for Coronary Artery Disease Using Extreme Gradient Boosting.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing machine learning models and traditional approaches for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Multimodal Neuroimaging-Based Machine Learning Models Leveraging Cerebral Morphometry and Glymphatic Parameters Predict Short-Term Post-Programming STN-DBS Motor Response in Parkinson's Disease.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Blood metabolic panels for identifying significant fibrosis and inflammation in patients with MASLD.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
- Quantitative metabolomics and machine learning identify differential metabolomic biomarkers across normoglycaemia, pre-diabetes and diabetes in a Qinghai Plateau population.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- From Logistic Regression to Foundation Models: Factors Associated With Improved Forecasts.Cureus · 2025Review
- Development and external validation of a machine learning model for brain injury in pediatric patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Critical care (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Early recognition of coronary artery disease (CAD) could delay its progress and significantly reduce mortality. Sensitive, specific, cost-efficient and non-invasive indicators for assessing individual CAD risk in community population screening are urgently needed. Patients and Methods: 3112 patients with CAD and 3182 controls were recruited from three clinical centers in China, and differences in baseline and clinical characteristics were compared. For the discovery cohort, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was used to identify significant features and four machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)) were applied to construct models for CAD risk assessment, the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and precision-recall (PR) curve were conducted to evaluate their predictive accuracy. The optimal model was interpreted by Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) analysis and assessed by the ROC curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) and validated by two external cohorts. Results: Using LASSO filtration, all included variables were considered to be statistically significant. Four machine learning models were constructed based on these features and the results of ROC and PR curve implied that the XGBoost model exhibited the highest predictive performance, which yielded a high area of ROC curve (AUC) of 0.988 (95% CI: 0.986-0.991) to distinguish CAD patients from controls with a sensitivity of 94.6% and a specificity of 94.6%. The calibration curve showed that the predicted results were in good agreement with actual observations, and DCA exhibited a better net benefit across a wide range of threshold probabilities. External validation of the model also exhibited favorable discriminatory performance, with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.953 (95% CI: 0.945-0.960), 89.9%, and 87.1% in the validation cohort, and 0.935 (95% CI: 0.915-0.955), 82.0%, and 90.3% in the replication cohort. Conclusion: Our model is highly informative for clinical practice and will be conducive to primary prevention and tailoring the precise management for CAD patients.
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.