ArticleScientific reports2024
Prediction of emergency department presentations for acute coronary syndrome using a machine learning approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- An Interpretable Machine Learning Framework for Analyzing the Interaction Between Cardiorespiratory Diseases and Meteo-Pollutant Sensor Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationship between weather and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) incidence has been the subject of considerable research, with varying conclusions. Harnessing machine learning techniques, our study explores the relationship between meteorological factors and ACS presentations in the emergency department (ED), offering insights into seasonal variations and inter-day fluctuations to optimize patient care and resource allocation. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, encompassing ACS presentations to Dutch EDs from 2010 to 2017. Temporal patterns were analyzed using heat-maps and time series plots. Multivariable linear regression (MLR) and Random Forest (RF) regression models were employed to forecast daily ACS presentations with prediction horizons of one, three, seven, and thirty days. Model performance was assessed using the coefficient of determination (R²), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). The study included 214,953 ACS presentations, predominantly unstable angina (UA) (94,272; 44%), non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (78,963; 37%), and ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) (41,718; 19%). A decline in daily ACS admissions over time was observed, with notable inter-day (estimated median difference: 41 (95%CI = 37-43, p = < 0.001) and seasonal variations (estimated median difference: 9 (95%CI 6-12, p = < 0.001). Both MLR and RF models demonstrated similar predictive capabilities, with MLR slightly outperforming RF. The models showed moderate explanatory power for ACS incidence (adjusted R² = 0.66; MAE (MAPE): 7.8 (11%)), with varying performance across subdiagnoses. Prediction of UA incidence resulted in the best-explained variability (adjusted R² = 0.80; MAE (MAPE): 5.3 (19.1%)), followed by NSTEMI and STEMI diagnoses. All models maintained consistent performance over extended prediction horizons. Our findings indicate that ACS presentation exhibits distinctive seasonal changes and inter-day differences, with marked reductions in incidence during the summer months and a distinct peak prevalence on Mondays. The predictive performance of our model was moderate. Nonetheless, we obtained good explanatory power for UA presentations. Our model emerges as a potentially valuable supplementary tool to enhance ED resource allocation or future predictive models predicting ACS incidence in the ED.
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.