ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Interpretable machine learning for predicting in-hospital bleeding after PCI in patients with diabetes and acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate interpretable machine learning models for predicting in-hospital bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 1,488 patients with diabetes and ACS who underwent PCI between 2021 and 2024. We employed LASSO and Boruta algorithms for feature selection from a comprehensive set of clinical variables. Five ML models were developed using a 70/30 training-validation split. The optimal model was selected based on performance metrics, including balanced accuracy, and was interpreted using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP).
resultsIn-hospital bleeding occurred in 80 patients (5.4%). In the validation set, the XGBoost model was selected as the optimal model, achieving the highest balanced accuracy (0.861) with a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.962. SHAP analysis revealed that low hemoglobin, multivessel disease, and the absence of proton pump inhibitor therapy were the most significant predictors of bleeding.
conclusionAn interpretable XGBoost model accurately predicts in-hospital bleeding risk in patients with diabetes and ACS undergoing PCI. By providing patient-specific explanations for its predictions, the model enhances personalized risk stratification and provides a valuable tool to guide clinical decision-making regarding antithrombotic therapy.
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.