ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2026
Artificial Intelligence Tools in Myocardial Infarction Prognosis: Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2026. 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 for prediction of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention during hospitalization in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a multi-center prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Interpretable Prediction of Myocardial Infarction Using Explainable Boosting Machines: A Biomarker-Based Machine Learning Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In clinical practice, mortality risk assessment in patients with myocardial infarction often relies on scales such as GRACE and TIMI. However, these scales were developed based on cohorts assembled many years ago. Since then, numerous changes have occurred, ranging from shifts in MI patient profiles to the introduction of new antiplatelet medications and the adoption of more restrictive lipid therapy targets. To address this issue, researchers are working to develop new stratification tools. Artificial intelligence (AI), which finds applications in nearly every area of medicine, also presents solutions to this problem. This review includes sixteen papers that contain machine learning and deep learning models used to prognosticate mortality risk at different points. Machine learning (ML) models, such as random forest, gradient boosting, and support vector machines, have demonstrated good to excellent performance. However, no single algorithm appears to be top-performing. Although artificial neural networks are considered one of the most promising algorithms, they do not invariably outperform other ML methods. The adaptability of AI models to various scenarios and their ability to handle complex datasets reassures us of their potential in cardiology. Concerning variables that influence the risk of mortality, most are well-established factors, such as age, left-ventricular ejection fraction, lipid parameters, and B-type natriuretic peptide. Additionally, less apparent indicators include platelet parameters, neutrophil count, and blood urea nitrogen. In conclusion, utilizing AI-based models in myocardial infarction risk stratification presents a significant opportunity to develop effective and tailored tools.
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.