ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Machine-Learning for Phenotyping and Prognostication of Myocardial Infarction and Injury in Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heat Stroke or Acute Coronary Syndrome? A Summer Collapse With an Unexpected Cardiac Twist.Cureus · 2026Article
- Toward Reliable Coronary Heart Disease Prediction: Integrating Multi-source Data with Ensemble Machine Learning.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- An easy-to-use model for screening type 2 myocardial infarction in geriatric patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T Reporting, Clinical Outcomes, and Health Care Resource Use.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Machines Running for Phenotyping of Myocardial Injury: The End to anJACC. Advances · 2024Article
- AI in Cardiology: Improving Outcomes for All.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: Clinical work-up for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is resource intensive. Objectives: This study aimed to develop a machine learning model for digitally phenotyping myocardial injury and infarction and predict 30-day events in suspected ACS patients. Methods: Training and testing data sets, predominantly derived from electronic health records, included suspected ACS patients presenting to 6 and 26 South Australian hospitals, respectively. All index presentations and 30-day death and myocardial infarction (MI) were adjudicated using the Fourth Universal Definition of MI. We developed 2 diagnostic prediction models which phenotype myocardial injury and infarction according to the Fourth UDMI (chronic myocardial injury vs acute myocardial injury patterns, the latter further differentiated into acute non-ischaemic myocardial injury, Types 1 and 2 MI) using eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) and deep-learning (DL). We also developed an event prediction model for risk prediction of 30-day death or MI using XGB. Analyses were performed in Python 3.6. Results: The training and testing data sets had 6,722 and 8,869 participants, respectively. The diagnostic prediction XGB and deep learning models achieved an area under the curve of 99.2% ± 0.1% and 98.8% ± 0.2%, respectively, for differentiating an acute myocardial injury Conclusions: Machine learning models can digitally phenotype suspected ACS patients at index presentation and predict subsequent events within 30 days. These models require external validation in a randomized clinical trial to evaluate their impact in clinical practice.
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.