Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42441296›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026

A machine learning model for early risk stratification of 28-day mortality after myocardial infarction.

Pierre G Aublin, Stephanie G Kühne, David Füller, Benjamin Sasko, Hannah Schulze, Oliver Ritter, Ferdinand Bauke, Christine Meisinger, Jakob Linseisen, Philip Raake and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Pierre G AublinChair for Diagnostic Sensing, University of Augsburg, Eichleitnerstraße 30, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8082-7811
Stephanie G KühneDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglingstraße 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
David FüllerDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4967-6517
Benjamin SaskoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Hannah SchulzeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Oliver RitterDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Ferdinand BaukeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglingstraße 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Christine MeisingerInstitute of Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Jakob LinseisenInstitute of Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Philip RaakeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglingstraße 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Sebastian ZaunsederChair for Diagnostic Sensing, University of Augsburg, Eichleitnerstraße 30, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Timo SchmitzInstitute of Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Dario BongiovanniDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Stenglingstraße 2, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4162-1482

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Despite significant improvement in transcatheter therapies, myocardial infarction (MI) retains a high burden of morbidity and mortality. While several scores have been developed, an established risk model tailored to predict short-term mortality after MI is lacking. Methods and results: In this study, we leveraged real-world data to develop a machine learning (ML) model for predicting 28-day mortality after MI, relying on clinical data collected within the first 24 h of hospitalization. From the Augsburg Myocardial Infarction Registry, 14 725 MI patients surviving the first 24 h of the acute event were included: 80% in the training set for model development to train a Gradient Boosting Machine while the 20% remaining served as test set. A sequential feature selection process retained variables as long as their addition improved AUPRC within 5-fold cross-validation on the train set. We then assessed our model on the test set and performed an external validation on 1328 patients from the Brandenburg Myocardial Infarction Registry. Shapley additive explanations values were used to explain the ML model's predictions. Our model retained six variables including age, systolic blood pressure, admission levels of glucose, creatinine, leucocytes, and whether the patient had a prehospital cardiac arrest. It exhibited good calibration and discrimination ability on the internal (AUROC=0.82) and external validation (AUROC=0.85) and outperformed common scores like GRACE, CADILLAC, and TIMI ( Conclusion: The results highlight the potential of our model to ease the detection of patients at high risk, allowing targeted early intervention to improve their outcome, and to contribute to improved precision medicine.

Indexed as

MortalityMyocardial infarctionRisk score

Identifiers

PMID42441296
PMCPMC13335799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.