Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40660443›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2026

Artificial Intelligence Tools in Myocardial Infarction Prognosis: Evaluating the Performance of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models.

Cyntia Szymanska, Artur Baszko

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Cyntia Szymanska2nd Department of Cardiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0009-0005-7889-7449
Artur Baszko2nd Department of Cardiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDeep LearningMachine LearningMyocardial InfarctionHumansPrognosisRisk AssessmentAI toolsendpointsmachine learning (ML).prognostic toolsrisk factorsRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID40660443
PMCPMC12976429

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.