Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40630448›Full record

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.

Yi Xiang, Dong Liu, Leilei Guo, Yuhua Zheng, Xiaoman Xiong, Tao Xu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yi XiangSchool of Postgraduate Students, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5583-561X
Dong LiuSchool of Medicine, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3041-7972
Leilei GuoCardiovascular Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0686-3353
Yuhua ZhengSchool of Postgraduate Students, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9956-7166
Xiaoman XiongSchool of Postgraduate Students, Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4892-2819
Tao XuCardiovascular Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 550000 Guiyang, Guizhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9446-7848

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MACEsmachine learningmyocardial infarctionPCI

Identifiers

PMID40630448
PMCPMC12230836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.