ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Prediction of cardiovascular risk using machine-learning methods. Sex-specific differences.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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-based prediction of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the STEMI-MIRI prediction model.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Enhancing clinically cardiovascular machine learning model for risk prediction via sample augmentation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer some advantages over traditional scoring systems to assess the influence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) on the risk of major cardiovascular event (MACE), and could be useful in clinical practice. These algorithms can also be trained using a growing body of real world data (RWD). The aim of the study was to evaluate the MACE risk applying the XGBoost and Random Forest ML algorithms to RWD, stratifying the study population by sex, comparing the outcomes of these two algorithms. Methods: The follow-up period of the study was from 2018 to 2020. For each algorithm, 3 models were generated, including age and different combinations of three groups of variables: blood test and blood pressure measurements; CVRFs; and medication adherence. Results: In this study, 52,393 subjects were included, of whom 581 suffered a MACE. The incidence of MACE was 1% in women and 1.3% in men. The most prevalent CVRF was hypertension, followed by hypercholesterolaemia in both sexes. Adherence to treatment was highest for antihypertensives and lowest for antidiabetics. In all models age was the greatest relative contributor to the risk of MACE, followed by adherence to antidiabetics. Adherence to treatment proved to be an important variable in the risk of having a MACE. Moreover, similar performance was found for RF and XGBoost algorithms. Conclusion: These findings support the use of ML to assess cardiovascular risk and guide personalized prevention strategies in primary care settings.
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.