ArticleHeliyon2024
An interpretable machine learning method for risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Traditional Risk Scores: Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Plaque Characterization and Personalized Atherosclerosis Management.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Development of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting intestinal necrosis in older patients with incarcerated hernia: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Predicting post-ESD bleeding in elderly patients with early gastrointestinal cancer: an explainable model based on endoscopic features.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgrounds: Risk stratification for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within one year in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a challenge. Although several predictive models based on machine learning have emerged, they are difficult to understand. This study aimed to develop a machine learning prediction model that is easy to understand and trustworthy by lay people to assess the risk of MACE in ACS patients undergoing PCI within one year of the procedure. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used medical data from 1105 patients to construct a machine-learning model. To ensure thoroughness and multidimensionality of model parsing, Shapley Additive explanations (SHAP) analysis and Local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) interpretation techniques were used to systematically and deeply interpret the constructed models from a global to a detailed level. Results: The study assessed 12 machine learning methods' prediction models and found that the Random Forest model was the most effective in predicting the risk of MACE in ACS patients after undergoing PCI. The model achieved an AUC value of 0.807 in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.82, and a stable F1 score of 0.51. SHAP analysis ranked eight key feature variables, such as LVEF, in global importance. The weights of each feature range in the prediction model were revealed using LIME analysis. Conclusion: The machine learning prediction model we developed is capable of accurately predicting the likelihood of patients with ACS experiencing a MACE within one year of surgery.
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.