Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41309715›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Prioritization of patients at risk of heart attack using a novel full-objective ITARA based on Random Forest and Decision tree.

Niloofar Amini, Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani, Fausto Cavallaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Niloofar AminiDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran.
Sarfaraz Hashemkhani ZolfaniSchool of Engineering, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Larrondo 1281, Coquimbo, Chile.
Fausto CavallaroDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. f.cavallaro@unicz.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart attacks remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly among middle-aged and older adults, often aggravated by unhealthy lifestyles and limited preventive care. Early identification and prioritization of at-risk individuals are essential to avoid severe complications. While prediction models exist, they often lack robust frameworks for prioritization across multiple clinical factors. This study addresses the gap by adapting Indifference Threshold Based Attribute Ratio Analysis (ITARA), a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method, into a fully objective framework enhanced by machine learning. Unlike traditional ITARA, which relies on expert-defined thresholds, the proposed approach derives thresholds from variable importance scores generated by classification models. Among the models tested, Random Forest achieved 97% accuracy and was used to produce feature importance values. These scores refined ITARA, improving prioritization accuracy. Results identified the number of major vessels (Ca) as the most critical predictor. By integrating machine learning, the ITARA framework becomes a transparent, data-driven tool that improveWs both early detection and the clinical management of heart attack risks.

Indexed as

Decision TreesMyocardial InfarctionAgedFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedRandom ForestRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsClassificationDecision treeHeart attackIndifference Threshold-based Attribute Ratio Analysis (ITARA)Machine learningMultiple criteria decision makingRandom Forest

Identifiers

PMID41309715
PMCPMC12660906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.