ArticleEuropean heart journal open2025
Machine learning integration of echocardiographic and clinical data to improve prediction of survival following myocardial infarction.
Article in European heart journal open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning to predict long-term cardiovascular death following myocardial infarction: incremental value of echocardiographic data.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Machine learning (ML) could improve risk stratification following myocardial infarction (MI). However, previous ML studies for risk prediction following MI did not incorporate comprehensive echocardiographic data. This study sought to use machine learning (ML) to integrate comprehensive echocardiographic and clinical data for the predicting all-cause mortality following MI. Methods and results: Retrospective study of consecutive patients admitted with MI to a tertiary referral hospital, with echocardiography performed within 24 h of admission. The cohort was randomly split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Two ML models (XGBoost and a neural network) were developed using echocardiographic and clinical data, and then compared with conventional logistic regression. The Shapley Additive exPlanations method was used for ML model interpretation. In the final study population of 3202 patients (mean age, 63.2 ± 12.5 years; 29.2% females), ST-elevation MI was present in 28.8%, and the mean cohort LVEF was 52.5 ± 11.2%. At a median follow-up of 4.5 years, there were 465 deaths. In the test set, XGBoost achieved the highest performance (AUC, 0.854), compared with logistic regression (AUC, 0.824; Conclusion: ML integration of comprehensive echocardiographic data with clinical data could lead to improved prediction of survival following MI. Clinical implementation should be considered.
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.