ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
Comparing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mortality after Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of machine learning in the diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Genetic determinants of metabolic-inflammatory dysregulation and machine learning prediction of COVID-19.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurate prediction of mortality following myocardial infarction (MI) is critical for timely identification of high-risk patients and optimization of interventions. Conventional statistical models are commonly used; however, advanced machine learning (ML) methods are being increasingly recognized. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the predictive performances of various ML models. Methods: A systematic search of the Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to January 9, 2025. A total of 14933 articles were identified, of which 330 underwent a full-text review and 69 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model in the 'midas' package of STATA 14. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the follow-up duration and selected clinical features. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUAPAS. Publication bias and evidence certainty were assessed using Deeks' funnel plots and GRADE framework, respectively. Results: Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), Single Decision Tree Models, and Random Forest models yielded similarly high predictive accuracies. Advanced GBMs, particularly XGBoost (AUC = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.92; sensitivity = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.74-0.82; specificity = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.89), showed the highest evidence certainty due to precision and minimal publication bias. Across advanced GBMs, adding echocardiographic parameters increased the sensitivity from 0.77 to 0.83 and specificity from 0.85 to 0.90, indicating a clinically meaningful yet resource-dependent gain in discrimination. Conclusions: Advanced Gradient Boosting Machines, particularly XGBoost, currently provide the most reliable mortality predictions in patients with MI. Future research should emphasize external validation, transparent reporting of feature selection, detailed data preprocessing, and dedicated studies on populations with NSTEMI.
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.