ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Development of a machine-learning based diagnosis procedure to distinguish aortic dissection from non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimilar symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations, have been observed in Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and aortic dissection (AD), making diagnosis challenging. Recognizing the distinction between them is essential for prompt treatment. This study was to establish a model based on machine learning (ML) to improve diagnosis accuracy
methods353 individuals’ clinical characteristics and laboratory results (193 AD, 160 NSTEMI) were analyzed. The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression analysis was used to identify significant indicators. Four ML models were constructed, and the Voting algorithm was used to conduct an ensemble analysis. Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) assessed the clinical value. And collected a new validation set of 36 AD and 48 NSTEMI patients to assess the generalizability of the optimal model. Shapley Additive explanations (SHAP) was used to evaluate feature contribution
resultsWith an accuracy of 92%, recall of 94%, F1-score of 91.43%, and an AUC of 0.95 (95 CI%: 0.91–0.99) on the test set, the ensemble Voting model was recognized as the optimal model. DCA provided evidence of the model’s clinical value in AD prediction. The SHAP indicated that Troponin T and D-dimer were crucial predictors
conclusionsWe successfully established a machine-learning based diagnosis approach for timely distinguish of AD and NSTEMI. Based on our results, the Voting model performed the best in terms of predicting efficacy. In addition, we used SHAP to provide a personalized risk assessment for the development of the prediction results. This diagnosis model may assist the emergency department to quickly avoiding misdiagnosis of AD 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.