ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Construction and Validation of a Predictive Model for Long-Term Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of artificial intelligence in predicting clinical outcomes of angiographic procedures: a comprehensive scoping review.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Unveiling the Determinants of Prehospital Delay in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing research and practice · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Current scoring systems used to predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) lack some key components and their predictive ability needs improvement. This study aimed to develop a more effective scoring system for predicting 3-year MACE in patients with AMI. Patients and Methods: Our statistical analyses included data for 461 patients with AMI. Eighty percent of patients (n=369) were randomly assigned to the training set and the remaining patients (n=92) to the validation set. Independent risk factors for MACE were identified in univariate and multifactorial logistic regression analyses. A nomogram was used to create the scoring system, the predictive ability of which was assessed using calibration curve, decision curve analysis, receiver-operating characteristic curve, and survival analysis. Results: The nomogram model included the following seven variables: age, diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, Killip class, chronic kidney disease, lipoprotein(a), and percutaneous coronary intervention during hospitalization. The predicted and observed values for the nomogram model were in good agreement based on the calibration curves. Decision curve analysis showed that the clinical nomogram model had good predictive ability. The area under the curve (AUC) for the scoring system was 0.775 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.728-0.823) in the training set and 0.789 (95% CI 0.693-0.886) in the validation set. Risk stratification based on the scoring system found that the risk of MACE was 4.51-fold higher (95% CI 3.24-6.28) in the high-risk group than in the low-risk group. Notably, this scoring system demonstrated better predictive ability than the GRACE risk score (AUC 0.776 vs 0.731; Conclusion: The scoring system developed from the nomogram in this study showed favorable performance in prediction of MACE and risk stratification of patients with AMI.
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.