ArticlePloS one2026
A machine learning model for predicting ischemic and bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention: Development and external validation.
Article in PloS one, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and externally validate a machine learning-based risk prediction model of ischemia and bleeding events in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and, to evaluate its clinical potential and economic implications compared with existing risk scoring systems.
methodsA weighted LightGBM model was trained on a PCI cohort from the United Arab Emirates, comprising 4,812 participants, and then externally validated on the MIMICIV database (3,406 patients). The main outcomes were composite ischemic events and major bleeding events. The model discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were evaluated using calibration plot, AUROC, and decision curve analysis. This model was used to estimate economic results under hypothetical risk-guided management strategies.
resultsThe weighted LightGBM model achieved AUROC values of 0.87 for ischemic events and 0.85 for bleeding events during internal validation. In external validation, AUROC values were 0.84 and 0.82, respectively. These results were higher than discrimination performance of the established scoring systems, including DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT. Exploratory analyses suggested that risk-guided strategies informed by the model may have potential, although these findings require prospective validation.
conclusionsThe explainable AI model demonstrated good discrimination and calibration for post-PCI ischemic and bleeding risk prediction. The model showed higher predictive performance compared with conventional risk scores and may serve as a potential decision-support tool to inform future prospective validation evaluating its clinical utility.
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.