ArticleScientific reports2024
Machine learning for predicting acute myocardial infarction in patients with sepsis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated bioinformatics analysis reveals cross-talking hub genes and therapeutic agents between sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Construction of an associative model for prolonged intensive care unit stay in sepsis patients combined with myocardial injury.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Troponin elevation in sepsis: when numbers mislead and clinical context matters.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025Article
- Beyond Conventional Blood Parameters: Novel Hematologic Indices for Interpretable Artificial Intelligence in Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical practice and research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and sepsis are the leading causes of high mortality rates in intensive care units. While sepsis frequently affects the cardiovascular system, distinguishing between sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy and AMI remains challenging due to overlapping biomarkers. Misdiagnosis can hinder timely treatment and increase risk of complications. This study used multidimensional clinical data and machine learning techniques to develop and validate a novel predictive model for identifying AMI in critically ill patients with sepsis. Data from patients with sepsis were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV database. Six machine learning algorithms were employed for model construction. Additionally, the machine learning-based models were compared with traditional scoring systems. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. In total, 2,103 critically ill patients with sepsis were included, 459 (21.8%) of whom experienced AMI during hospitalization. A total of 26 variables were selected for model construction. Among all models, the Gradient Boosting Classifier model demonstrated the best predictive performance in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. Machine learning models have the potential to serve as tools for predicting AMI in patients with sepsis. The Gradient Boosting Classifier model developed herein demonstrated promising predictive performance, supporting clinicians in identifying patients at high-risk of sepsis and implementing early interventions to reduce mortality rates.
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.