ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Machine learning-based prediction of mortality in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of artificial intelligence in predicting clinical outcomes of angiographic procedures: a comprehensive scoping review.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome at Various Stages of the Diagnostic Process: Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- A machine learning model for early risk stratification of 28-day mortality after myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Early prediction of sepsis in the ICU: a comparative analysis of multiple machine-learning algorithms using the MIMIC-III database.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Machine learning predicts ICU mortality in cardiogenic shock: interpreting SOFA, lactate, and pH thresholds.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an in-hospital cardiogenic shock prediction model for AMI patients based on machine learning.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- First-day lactate trajectories and subsequent in-hospital mortality in cardiogenic shock: a landmark multicohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mortality after Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of machine learning models for personalized prediction of benefit from temporary mechanical circulatory support after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- PiCCO hemodynamic parameters in cardiogenic shock: prediction of LVEF, NT-proBNP and MACE based on XGBoost machine learning model.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- A machine learning model for predicting severity-adjusted in-hospital mortality in pneumonia patients.Digital healthArticle
- Blood urea nitrogen and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with MI or cardiogenic shock: Analysis of the MIMIC-IV database.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
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
Background: In the ICU, patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) often face high mortality rates, making timely and precise mortality risk prediction crucial for clinical decision-making. Despite existing models, machine learning algorithms hold the potential for improved predictive accuracy. Methods: In this study, a predictive model was developed using the MIMIC-IV database, with external validation performed on the eICU-CRD database. We included ICU patients diagnosed with AMI-CS. Feature selection was conducted using the Boruta algorithm, followed by the construction and comparison of four machine learning models: Logistic Regression (LR), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), and Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB). Model performance was evaluated based on metrics such as AUC (Area Under the Curve), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and so on. The SHAP method was employed to visualize and interpret the importance of model features. Finally, we constructed an online prediction model and conducted external validation in the eICU-CRD database. Results: In this study, a total of 570 and 391 patients with AMI-CS were included from the MIMIC-IV and eICU-CRD databases, respectively. Among all machine learning algorithms evaluated, LR exhibited the best performance with a validation set AUC of 0.841(XGBoost: 0.835, AdaBoost: 0.839, GNB: 0.826). The model incorporated five variables: prothrombin time, blood urea nitrogen, age, beta-blockers and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers. SHAP plots are employed to visualize the importance of model features and to interpret the results. An online prediction tool was developed, externally validated with the eICU-CRD database, achieving an AUC of 0.755. Conclusion: Employing the LR algorithm, we developed a predictive model for assessing the mortality risk among AMI-CS patients in the ICU setting. Through model predictions, this facilitates early detection of high-risk individuals, ensures judicious allocation of healthcare resources.
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.