ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Development and validation of an in-hospital cardiogenic shock prediction model for AMI patients based on machine learning.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a prediction model for in-hospital cardiogenic shock (CS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on machine learning (ML) algorithms.
methodsA total of 1608 AMI patients admitted to the First Hospital of Lanzhou University during 2023 and 2024 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The 851 patients from 2023 were randomly divided into a training set (n = 595) and a validation set (n = 256) at a ratio of 7:3. The LASSO–Boruta combined algorithm was used for feature selection, resulting in the construction of six ML models. The validation set was used for internal validation, while the patients enrolled from 2024 served as a temporal external validation cohort in a test set (n = 757). Model performance was evaluated using various metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and F1 score. Additionally, SHAP analysis was employed to interpret the contribution of the selected features. An online prediction application based on the Streamlit framework was developed.
resultsLASSO regression initially identified 13 candidate features, while the random forest (RF) model demonstrated the best predictive performance in the training set. Following Boruta refinement, seven key features were retained, leading to the construction of an updated RF model. This model achieved an AUROC of 0.906, an accuracy of 0.977, a precision of 0.900, a sensitivity of 0.643, a specificity of 0.996, and a F1 score of 0.750 on the internal validation set. Temporal external validation at the same center showed an AUROC of 0.988, an accuracy of 0.967, a precision of 0.701, a sensitivity of 0.904, a specificity of 0.972, and a F1 score of 0.790. Furthermore, the model demonstrated excellent calibration, with a Brier score of 0.023 and 0.027. The SHAP analysis ranked feature importance as Killip class, D-dimer (DD), creatinine (Crea), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), apolipoprotein B/A (APOB/A), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and lactate (Lac).
conclusionWe developed and validated a RF model based on seven key variables—Killip class, DD, Crea, ALT, APOB/A, DBP and Lac—that serves as a predictive tool for identifying the risk of in-hospital CS in AMI patients post-PCI. Additionally, we created an online prediction application using Streamlit, which facilitates the implementation of this model into clinical practice.
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.