ArticleScientific reports2024
A machine learning prediction model for Cardiac Amyloidosis using routine blood tests in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning-based methods in diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- An interpretable machine learning model based on optimal feature selection for identifying CT abnormalities in patients with mild traumatic brain injury.EClinicalMedicine · 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
Abstract
Current approaches for cardiac amyloidosis (CA) identification are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and present challenges in sensitivity and accuracy, leading to limited treatment efficacy and poor prognosis for patients. In this retrospective study, we aimed to leverage machine learning (ML) to create a diagnostic model for CA using data from routine blood tests. Our dataset included 6,563 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, 261 of whom had been diagnosed with CA. We divided the dataset into training and testing cohorts, applying ML algorithms such as logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost for automated learning and prediction. Our model's diagnostic accuracy was then evaluated against CA biomarkers, specifically serum-free light chains (FLCs). The model's interpretability was elucidated by visualizing the feature importance through the gain map. XGBoost outperformed both random forest and logistic regression in internal validation on the testing cohort, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.92-0.97), sensitivity of 0.92 (95%CI: 0.86-0.98), specificity of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.94-0.97), and an F1 score of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.85-0.92). Its performance was also superior to the serum FLC-kappa and FLC-lambda combination (AUC of 0.88). Furthermore, XGBoost identified unique biomarker signatures indicative of multisystem dysfunction in CA patients, with significant changes in eGFR, FT3, cTnI, ANC, and NT-proBNP. This study develops a highly sensitive and accurate ML model for CA detection using routine clinical laboratory data, effectively streamlining diagnostic procedures, and providing valuable clinical insights and guiding future research into disease mechanisms.
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.