SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Accuracy of Machine Learning Models for Early Prediction of Major Cardiovascular Events Post Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews 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.
- Missing-data-aware machine learning prediction of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Contrast-Free Myocardial Infarction Segmentation with Attention U-Net.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) significantly affect the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction (MI). With the widespread application of machine learning (ML), researchers have attempted to develop models for predicting MACEs following MI. However, there remains a lack of evidence-based proof to validate their value. Thus, we conducted this study to review the ML models' performance in predicting MACEs following MI, contributing to the evidence base for the application of clinical prediction tools. Methods: A systematic literature search spanned four major databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) with entries through to June 19, 2024. With the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST), the risk of bias in the included models was appraised. Subgroup analyses based on whether patients had percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were carried out for the analysis. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included for analysis, covering 59,392 patients with MI. The pooled C-index for ML models in the validation sets was 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.81) in predicting MACEs post MI, with a sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE) of 0.78 (95% CI 0.73-0.82) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.89), respectively; the pooled C-index was 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.79) in the validation sets, with an SEN of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) and an SPE of 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.90) in patients who underwent PCI. Logistic regression was the predominant model in the studies and demonstrated relatively high accuracy. Conclusions: ML models based on clinical characteristics following MI, influence the accuracy of prediction. Therefore, future studies can include larger sample sizes and develop simplified tools for predicting MACEs. The PROSPERO registration: CRD42024564550, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024564550.
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.