ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Construction and validation of risk prediction models for pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients based on different machine learning methods.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning in the Prediction of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Emergency Department Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- An enhancing diagnostic pulmonary diseases diagnostic method for differentiating talaromycosis from tuberculosis.iScience · 2025Article
- Nomogram based on lymphocyte-associated inflammatory indexes predicts portal vein thrombosis after splenectomy with esophagogastric devascularization.BMC gastroenterology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to apply different machine learning (ML) methods to construct risk prediction models for pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate and compare the predictive efficacy and clinical benefit of each model. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study involving 332 participants (172 PE positive cases and 160 PE negative cases) recruited from Guangdong Medical University. Participants were randomly divided into a training group (70%) and a validation group (30%). Baseline data were analyzed using univariate analysis, and potential independent risk factors associated with PE were further identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Six ML models, namely Logistic Regression (LR), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and AdaBoost were developed. The predictive efficacy of each model was compared using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the area under the curve (AUC). Clinical benefit was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Logistic regression analysis identified lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, elevated D-dimer, shortened activated partial prothrombin time, and increased red blood cell distribution width as potential independent risk factors for PE. Among the six ML models, the RF model achieved the highest AUC of 0.778. Additionally, DCA consistently indicated that the RF model offered the greatest clinical benefit. Conclusion: This study developed six ML models, with the RF model exhibiting the highest predictive efficacy and clinical benefit in the identification and prediction of PE occurrence in hospitalized 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.