ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Role of Biological Age in the Determination of Long-Term Cause-Specific Death Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-derived electrocardiographic age gap as a predictor of mortality after coronary revascularization: prognostic value and short-term intra-patient variability.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tested whether biologic age, as estimated by deficits, functional impairments, or Age-Gap or their combination, provide improved estimation of cause-specific death as compared with chronological age.
methodsCardiovascular and noncardiovascular deficits, functional impairments, and Age-Gap were prospectively collected in 535 patients aged ≥55 years undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions between August 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018. Age-Gap was calculated as the difference between chronological age and age estimated by artificial intelligence ECG using a convolutional neural network. The full biological age model included deficits, functional impairments, and Age-Gap >2 SD. A multivariable reduced model with the least number of variables was also created to provide a comparable C index to the full model.
resultsThe average chronological age was 72.1±9.5 years, and there were 68% of men. During a median follow-up of 2.61 years, 124 (23%) patients died. There was a modest correlation between Age-Gap and biological age (
conclusionsEstimated biological age from deficits and functional impairments was superior to chronological age in predicting long-term cause-specific mortality following percutaneous coronary interventions.
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.