Observational studyBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning and traditional regression approaches to predict risk of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Observational study 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the prognostic value of Machine learning (ML) and traditional Cox regression method for predicting adverse clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In a prospective observational cohort of 2730 patients with ACS, we analyzed several candidate variables for median follow-up of 8.1 years from the Observation of Cardiovascular Events of ACS patients (OCEA) study. External validation was performed in 542 patients with ACS for median follow-up of 2.8 years from the management of cardiovascular risk and health (MCRH). The random survival forests (RSF)-based ML model including clinical traditional risk factors and plasma biomarkers were evaluated. A multivariable Cox regression model was subsequently used to develop a nomogram. Adverse clinical events refer to cardiovascular events and non-cardiovascular death. Cardiovascular events were defined as a combined endpoint of MI, ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death and heart failure for hospital. RSF based model exhibited the highest prognostic ability, achieving a C-index of 0.960 with 95% CI (0.952-0.970) in the derivation cohort compared with nomogram model [C-index 0.806, 95% CI:0.790-0.822) and GRACE 2.0 (C-index 0.730, 95% CI:0.711-0.749) (both p < 0.001). In the validation cohort with a median follow-up of 2.8 years, RSF model achieved C-index of 0.836 (95% CI: 0.813-0.866), without superiority compared with Cox regression model with C-index of 0.854 (95%CI: 0.785-0.922), both of which outperformed GRACE 2.0 risk score in derivation and validation cohorts (p < 0.001). Also, our Cox model achieved significantly higher C-index than GRACE 3.0 across both derivation (0.806 vs 0.710) and external validation cohorts (0.854 vs 0.701; all p < 0.001). RSF model and Cox regression model outperformed GRACE 2.0/GRACE 3.0 in the discrimination of adverse clinical events in ACS, with former two carrying no significant difference. RSF showed high apparent performance in the derivation cohort, but the simpler seven-variable Cox nomogram demonstrated comparable external validation performance and may be more practical for clinical use.
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.