ArticleGeroScience2025
Artificial intelligence improves risk prediction in cardiovascular disease.
Article in GeroScience, 2025. 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.
- Molecular Basis of Adipose-Cardiac Crosstalk in Cardiovascular Diseases: From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Opportunities.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- An explainable machine learning model for predicting osteoporotic fragility fractures: a retrospective study in South China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of red blood cell distribution width in traumatic brain injury: A mediation and deep learning analysis.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Digital therapeutics into geriatric cardiovascular emergency care.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- A stacking ensemble framework integrating radiomics and deep learning for prognostic prediction in head and neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents a major public health issue, claiming numerous lives. This study aimed to demonstrate the advantages of employing artificial intelligence (AI) models to improve the prediction of CVD risk using a large cohort of relatively healthy adults aged 70 years or more. In this study, deep learning (DL) models provide enhanced predictions (DeepSurv: C-index = 0.662, Integrated Brier Score (IBS) = 0.046; Neural Multi-Task Logistic Regression (NMTLR): C-index = 0.660, IBS = 0.047), as compared to the conventional (Cox: C-index = 0.634, IBS = 0.048) and machine learning (Random Survival Forest (RSF): C-index = 0.641, IBS = 0.048) models. The risk scores generated by the DL models also demonstrated superior performance. Moreover, AI models (NMTLR, DeepSurv, and RSF) were more effective, requiring the treatment of only 9 to 10 patients to prevent one CVD event, compared to the conventional model requiring treatment of nearly four times higher number of patients (NNT = 38). In summary, AI models, particularly DL models, possess superior predictive capabilities that can enhance patient treatment in a more cost-effective manner. Nonetheless, AI tools should serve to complement and assist healthcare professionals, rather than supplant them. The DeepSurv model, selected due to its relatively superior performance, is deployed in the form of web application locally, and is accessible on GitHub ( https://github.com/Robidar/Chuchu_Depl ). Finally, as we have demonstrated the benefit of using AI for reassessment of an existing CVD risk score, we recommend other infamous risk scores undergo similar reassessment.
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.