ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
AI-based identification of patients who benefit from revascularization: a multicenter study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease often relies on ischemia severity, but we introduce an AI-driven approach that uses clinical and imaging data to estimate individualized treatment effects and guide personalized decisions. Methods: Using a large, international registry from 13 centers, we developed an AI model to estimate individual treatment effects by simulating outcomes under alternative therapeutic strategies. The model was trained on an internal cohort constructed using 1:1 propensity score matching to emulate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), creating balanced patient pairs in which only the treatment strategy-early revascularization (defined as any procedure within 90 days of MPI) versus medical therapy-differed. This design allowed the model to estimate individualized treatment effects, forming the basis for counterfactual reasoning at the patient level. We then derived the AI-REVASC score, which quantifies the potential benefit, for each patient, of early revascularization. The score was validated in the held-out testing cohort using Cox regression. Results: Of 45,252 patients, 19,935 (44.1%) were female, median age 65 (IQR: 57-73). During a median follow-up of 3.6 years (IQR: 2.7-4.9), 4,323 (9.6%) experienced MI or death. The AI model identified a group (n=1,335, 5.9%) that benefits from early revascularization with a propensity-adjusted hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.25-1.00). Patients identified for early revascularization had higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and lower LVEF. Conclusions: This study pioneers a scalable, data-driven approach that emulates randomized trials using retrospective data. The AI-REVASC score enables precision revascularization decisions where guidelines and RCTs fall short.
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.