ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2026
Development and validation of a neural network survival prediction model for ischemic heart disease.
Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of machine learning and deep learning models for heart disease prediction in a small clinical dataset.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent risk prediction models for ischemic heart disease in clinical use are relatively simple and use a limited collection of well-known risk factors. Using machine learning to integrate a broader panel of features from electronic health records (EHRs) may improve post-angiography prognostication.
methodsThis retrospective model development and validation study was based on Danish EHR data. Icelandic EHR data were used for external test. Patients with a coronary angiography-confirmed diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis between 2006 and 2016 were included for model development (n = 39,746). Time to all-cause mortality, the prediction target, was tracked until 2019, or up to 5 years, whichever came first. To model time-to-event data and deal with censoring, neural network-based discrete-time survival models were used. The model, PMHnet, uses 584 different features including clinical characteristics, laboratory tests, and diagnosis and procedure codes. Model performance was evaluated using time-dependent AUC (tdAUC) and the Brier score. PMHnet was benchmarked against the updated GRACE2.0 risk score and less feature-rich neural network models. Models were evaluated using hold-out data (n = 5000) and external validation data from Iceland. Feature importance and model explainability were assessed using SHAP analysis.
resultsOn the test set (n = 5000), the tdAUC of PMHnet was 0.88 [ 0.86-0.90] (case count = 196) at six months, 0.88 [0.86-0.90] (cc = 261) at one year, 0.84 [0.82-0.86] (cc = 395) at three years, and 0.82 [0.80-0.84] (cc = 763) at five years. PMHnet showed similar performance in the Icelandic data. Compared to the GRACE2.0 score and intermediate models limited to GRACE2.0 features or single data modalities, PMHnet had significantly better model discrimination across all evaluated prediction timepoints.
conclusionsMore complex and feature-rich machine learning models can better predict all-cause mortality in ischemic heart disease and may be used by clinicians and patients to inform and guide treatment and management.
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.