ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Machine learning and conventional Cox regression to predict target-lesion revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite advances in procedural and medical treatment, the risk of target-lesion revascularization (TLR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) persists. This study investigated the use of machine learning (ML)-based Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) to predict the risk of short- and long-term clinically driven TLR compared with conventional Cox regression with stepwise variable selection. Methods: The dataset consisted of 24,360 patients with 34,149 Results: Full Cox and stepwise Cox performed equally at 0-1 years (Harrell's C 0.6743). Cox-LASSO provided a minor improvement in predictive performance on the short-term risk of TLR (0.6774). At 1-5 years, stepwise Cox had the best predictive performance (0.6831) and was not outperformed by Cox-LASSO (0.6818). Most identified risk factors for TLR were consistent across conventional Cox models and Cox-LASSO. Survival curves showed separation between high- and low-risk index lesions in all models, as evaluated by the log-rank test. Conclusion: The ML-based Cox-LASSO model did not improve predictive performance over well-specified conventional Cox regression models for short- and long-term TLR. The models demonstrated intermediate predictive performance and suggest that they can support risk stratification after further validation, but they may not yet be precise enough for definitive bedside decision-making for individual patients.
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.