ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Development and validation of a deep learning-enhanced prediction model for the likelihood of pulmonary embolism.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Emergency Department Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality in Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A machine learning-based risk prediction model for Hospitalized patients with deep vein thrombosis.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Deep learning algorithm enables lower limb venous thrombosis detection with CT venography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Time series prediction for lung disease diagnosis and treatment optimization.Frontiers in medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and potentially fatal condition. Timely and accurate risk assessment in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is crucial. This study aims to develop a deep learning-based, precise, and efficient PE risk prediction model (PE-Mind) to overcome the limitations of current clinical tools and provide a more targeted risk evaluation solution. Methods: We analyzed clinical data from patients by first simplifying and organizing the collected features. From these, 37 key clinical features were selected based on their importance. These features were categorized and analyzed to identify potential relationships. Our prediction model uses a convolutional neural network (CNN), enhanced with three custom-designed modules for better performance. To validate its effectiveness, we compared this model with five commonly used prediction models. Results: PE-Mind demonstrated the highest accuracy and reliability, achieving 0.7826 accuracy and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.8641 on the prospective test set, surpassing other models. Based on this, we have also developed a Web server, PulmoRiskAI, for real-time clinician operation. Conclusion: The PE-Mind model improves prediction accuracy and reliability for assessing PE risk in acute DVT patients. Its convolutional architecture and residual modules substantially enhance predictive performance.
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.