ArticleJACC. Advances2026
A Deep Learning Model to Guide Personalized Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing PCI.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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.
- A narrative review on the use of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves rapidly changing clinical, hemodynamic, and metabolic factors that current models cannot effectively integrate.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to develop and validate a deep learning (DL) model to guide personalized use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in CS patients undergoing PCI.
methodsThe authors analyzed data from 1,408 CS patients treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or microaxial flow-pump (mAFP) at multiple hospitals (2004-2019). Clinical, hemodynamic, and metabolic variables from admission to MCS placement were compiled into longitudinal vectors. Using Python 3.7 and TabNet in PyTorch, the OPtiMCS DL model was developed and validated in Google Colab to predict 30-day mortality, bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), 1-year mortality, and 1-year stroke. The model also simulated alternate outcomes by switching between IABP and mAFP to support a patient-centered approach.
resultsThe rates for 30-day mortality, bleeding, AKI, 1-year mortality, and 1-year stroke were 31%, 43%, 35%, 35%, and 5%, respectively. OPtiMCS achieved AUCs from 83% (AKI) to 98% (mortality) and identified key predictive features (eg, cardiac arrest predicted mortality). OPtiMCS predicted benefit of one MCS device over the other (eg, IABP switched to mAFP was predicted to reduce mortality by 1.8% and AKI by 5.2%).
conclusionsAmong CS patients undergoing PCI, we developed and validated a DL model to predict outcomes and facilitate a patient-centric approach. If it can be externally validated and implemented in clinical practice, it has the potential to distinguish the risk-benefit balance of MCS devices, reduce adverse outcomes, improve survival, and ultimately advance CS care.
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.