ArticleCirculation reports2026
Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Bleeding Risk Score for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional bleeding risk scores after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have limited discrimination and external validation, so we developed and validated a machine learning (ML)-based bleeding risk score using real-world data. Methods and Results: The primary outcome was major bleeding. In the Clinical Deep Data Accumulation System (CLIDAS) cohort, bleeding events occurring >30 days after PCI were identified by chart review and classified as moderate or severe bleeding by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and TPA for Occluded Coronary Arteries criteria. In the Health, Clinic, and Education Information Evaluation Institute (HCEI) cohort, major bleeding was identified using ICD-10 codes and Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data. We analyzed 2,502 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI from CLIDAS and externally validated the model in 10,928 patients from HCEI. A total of 5 ML algorithms were trained. Key predictors were age, body mass index, Btype natriuretic peptide, and hemoglobin. Logistic regression demonstrated the best performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.748) and was used to derive the CLIDAS bleeding risk score. The CLIDAS score outperformed the binary J-HBR (AUC 0.74 vs. 0.63, P=0.007) and binary ARC-HBR (AUC 0.74 vs. 0.62, P=0.011), but in external validation the CLIDAS score demonstrated limited discrimination (AUC 0.64), lower than continuous conventional scores. Conclusions: Our novel ML-based bleeding risk score showed better discrimination than conventional binary classifications in the derivation/internal validation, but external performance was limited.
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.