ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Machine Learning Prediction for Prognosis of Patients With Aortic Stenosis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unimodal to multimodal: a systematic review of predictive machine learning models for valvular heart diseases.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Contemporary Management of Aortic Stenosis: Timing of Intervention and Lifetime Valve Management.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in neurocardiology: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- AI in Cardiology: Improving Outcomes for All.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Toward a Holistic Approach in Aortic Stenosis Using Machine-Learning Algorithms.JACC. Advances · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aortic valve stenosis of any degree is associated with poor outcomes. Objectives: The authors aimed to develop a risk prediction model for aortic stenosis (AS) prognosis using machine learning techniques. Methods: A prognostic algorithm was developed using an AS registry of 10,407 patients undergoing echocardiography between 2008 and 2020. Clinical, echocardiographic, laboratory, and medication data were used to train and test a time-to-event model, the random survival forest (RSF), for AS patient's prognosis. The composite outcome included aortic valve replacement or mortality. The SHapley Additive exPlanations method attributed the importance of variables and provided personalized risk assessment. The algorithm was validated in 2 external cohorts of 11,738 and 954 patients with AS. Results: The median follow-up of the primary cohort was 48 (21-87) months. In this period, 1,116 patients underwent aortic valve replacement, and 5,069 patients died. RSF had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.84) for outcomes prediction at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Using a cut-off of 50%, the RSF sensitivity and specificity for the composite outcome, were 0.80 and 0.73, respectively. Validation performance in the 2 external cohorts was similar, with AUCs of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.72-0.74) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.72-0.76), respectively. AS severity, age, serum albumin, pulmonary artery pressure, and chronic kidney disease emerged as the top significant variables in the model. Conclusions: In patients with AS, a machine learning algorithm predicts outcomes with good accuracy, and prognostic characteristics were identified. The model can potentially guide risk factor modification and clinical decisions to improve patient prognosis.
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.