ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Machine learning for diagnosing non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a derivation and validation study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation (APACE) Study
Observational Study on the Safety of Accelerated Rule-out Protocols in Patients Admitted With Chest Pain to a Crowded CPU
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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previously developed machine-learning (ML)-based decision support tools for patients presenting with suspected non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remain proprietary, limiting public accessibility and clinical adoption. Methods: To address this limitation, we used two international prospective multicentre diagnostic studies for model derivation and internal validation, and one large prospective European study for external validation, evaluating two open-access ML-based models. The derivation and internal validation cohort comprised 8763 patients (34% women) enrolled across 13 and 12 sites, respectively, in Switzerland, Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Italy and the USA between April 2006 and September 2020, and between August 2011 and June 2013. The external validation cohort included 4882 patients (41% women) from Germany. Patients were excluded if they had a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, unclear final diagnosis, renal failure or an absent 12-lead electrocardiogram. A single-high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) model incorporated information available at emergency department presentation, while a serial-hs-cTn model additionally utilised the second hs-cTn measurement and the time interval between samples. The final diagnosis of NSTEMI was centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists in all studies. The diagnostic performance of both models was compared with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) hs-cTn-0/1 h-algorithm. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00470587 and NCT03111862. Findings: The single-hs-cTn- and serial-hs-cTn model demonstrated excellent discrimination in internal validation, and external validation, with an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 0.94 [0.92-0.95], and 0.91 [0.90-0.92], and 0.96 [0.96-0.97], and 0.96 [0.95-0.97], respectively. Calibration was good across all datasets. Compared to the ESC-0/1 h algorithm, FAST-NSTEMI provided comparable safety metrics while triaging more patients to rule-out or rule-in. Triage efficacy improved substantially with the single-hs-cTn model (internal validation 52.4% versus 29.8%, external validation 32.1% versus 14.9%) and modestly with the serial-hs-cTn model (internal validation 80.8% versus 76.9%, external validation 77.1% versus 72.8%, all p < 0.01). Interpretation: The FAST-NSTEMI ML-models offer excellent discrimination, good calibration, high safety, and improved triage efficacy compared to the ESC 0/1 h-algorithm. Further external validation or prospective implementations are warranted to confirm the generalisability of the findings and the clinical utility of the models. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation and Swiss Heart Foundation.
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.