ArticleAsiaIntervention2024
Accuracy of machine learning in predicting outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review.
Article in AsiaIntervention, 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.
- Comparing the Performance of Machine Learning Models and Conventional Risk Scores for Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Cerebrovascular Events After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies have shown potential in introducing machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Aims: We aimed to critically appraise current ML models' effectiveness as clinical tools to predict outcomes post-PCI. Methods: Searches of four databases were conducted for articles published from the database inception date to 29 May 2021. Studies using ML to predict outcomes post-PCI were included. For individual post-PCI outcomes, measures of diagnostic accuracy were extracted. An adapted checklist comprising existing frameworks for new risk markers, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic tools and ML was used to critically appraise the included studies along the stages of the translational pathway: development, validation, and impact. Quality of training data and methods of dealing with missing data were evaluated. Results: Twelve cohorts from 11 studies were included with a total of 4,943,425 patients. ML models performed with high diagnostic accuracy. However, there are concerns over the development of the ML models. Methods of dealing with missing data were problematic. Four studies did not discuss how missing data were handled. One study removed patients if any of the predictor variable data points were missing. Moreover, at the validation stage, only three studies externally validated the models presented. There could be concerns over the applicability of these models. None of the studies discussed the cost-effectiveness of implementing the models. Conclusions: ML models show promise as a useful clinical adjunct to traditional risk stratification scores in predicting outcomes post-PCI. However, significant challenges need to be addressed before ML can be integrated into clinical practice.
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.