ArticleScientific reports2025
Prediction of pulmonary embolism by an explainable machine learning approach in the real world.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Harnessing hybrid stacking ensemble learning for accurate pulmonary embolism diagnosis using tabular clinical data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Risk Stratification in Pulmonary Embolism: Prognostic Value of PESI, WELLS, PADUA, and IMPROVE Scores in Relation to Laboratory Markers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Emergency Department Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Integration of ECG and Molecular Biomarkers in Pulmonary Embolism.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Model for concomitant pulmonary embolism in a deep vein thrombosis patient.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026Article
- Research progress of artificial intelligence and machine learning in pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
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
Abstract
In recent years, large amounts of researches showed that pulmonary embolism (PE) has become a common disease, and PE remains a clinical challenge because of its high mortality, high disability, high missed and high misdiagnosed rates. To address this, we employed an artificial intelligence-based machine learning algorithm (MLA) to construct a robust predictive model for PE. We retrospectively analyzed 1480 suspected PE patients hospitalized in West China Hospital of Sichuan University between May 2015 and April 2020. 126 features were screened and diverse MLAs were utilized to craft predictive models for PE. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were used to evaluate their performance and SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) values were utilized to elucidate the prediction model. Regarding the efficacy of the single model that most accurately predicted the outcome, RF demonstrated the highest efficacy in predicting outcomes, with an AUC of 0.776 (95% CI 0.774-0.778). The SHAP summary plot delineated the positive and negative effects of features attributed to the RF prediction model, including D-dimer, activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), fibrin and fibrinogen degradation products (FFDP), platelet count, albumin, cholesterol, and sodium. Furthermore, the SHAP dependence plot illustrated the impact of individual features on the RF prediction model. Finally, the MLA based PE predicting model was designed as a web page that can be applied to the platform of clinical management. In this study, PE prediction model was successfully established and designed as a web page, facilitating the optimization of early diagnosis and timely treatment strategies to enhance PE patient outcomes.
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.