ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Towards a dynamic model to estimate evolving risk of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of machine learning models with conventional statistical methods for prediction of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- The prevalence of bleeding after percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian heart journalPooled it
- Another Score in the Flood, or a Needed Step Toward East Asian Precision?Korean circulation journal · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While static risk models may identify key driving risk factors, the dynamic nature of risk requires up-to-date risk information to guide treatment decision making. Bleeding is a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and existing risk models produce only a single risk estimate anchored at a single point in time, despite the dynamic nature of this risk. Using data available from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI, we trained 6 different tree-based machine learning models to estimate the risk of bleeding at key decision points: 1) choice of access site, 2) prescription of medication before PCI, and 3) choice of closure device. We began with 3,423,170 PCIs performed between July 2009 through April 2015. We included only index PCIs and removed anyone who had missing data regarding bleeding events or underwent coronary artery bypass grafting during the index admission. We included 2,868,808 PCIs; 2,314,446 (80.7%) before 2014 for training and 554,362 (19.3%) remaining for validation. This study considered all data available from the Registry prior to patient discharge: patient characteristics, coronary anatomy and lesion characterization, laboratory data, past medical history, anti-coagulation, stent type, and closure method categories. The primary outcome was any in-hospital bleeding event within 72 hours after the start of the PCI procedure. Discrimination improved from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.812 using only presentation variables to 0.845 using all variables. Among 123,712 patients classified as low risk by the initial model, 14,441 were reclassified as moderate risk (1.4% experienced bleeds), while 723 were reclassified as high risk (12.5% experienced bleeds). Static risk prediction models have more predictive error than those that update risk prediction with newly available data, which provides up-to-date risk prediction for individualized care throughout a hospitalization.
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.