ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Integrating conformal prediction with machine learning for uncertainty-aware risk stratification in coronary artery disease.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Predictive models are increasingly used in clinical decision-making in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, most existing models focus on discriminative ability while ignoring individual prediction uncertainty, which is particularly prominent in small-sample contexts, limiting clinical applications. Methods: We developed an uncertainty-aware model integrating machine learning and conformal prediction (CP) for CAD prediction in a small-sample setting cohort ( Results: Both LR and RF show strong discrimination (AUC 0.953 and 0.951). LR is slightly better calibrated, while RF is more accurate. CP efficiently quantifies uncertainty. Union and intersection achieve higher coverage, whereas MSCP with voting balances coverage and efficiency. The combined RF-MSCP model maintains empirical coverage above the nominal level across all significance thresholds, demonstrating robust uncertainty assessment and risk prediction in small-sample settings. Conclusion: The integration of CP with machine learning has led to the development of the RF-MSCP model, which provides reliable uncertainty quantification for CAD risk prediction, especially in small sample settings. By identifying potentially high-risk individuals overlooked by traditional models, this approach improves predictive discrimination and supports more robust clinical decision.
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.