Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2023
The combination of supervised and unsupervised learning based risk stratification and phenotyping in pulmonary arterial hypertension-a long-term retrospective multicenter trial.
Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-derived risk stratification versus conventional risk stratification methods in pulmonary hypertension patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid expert system for lifestyle recommendations in hypertensive patients.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Emerging multimodality imaging techniques for the pulmonary circulation.The European respiratory journal · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of Agatroban in improving the prognosis of ischemic stroke patients.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate risk stratification in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a devastating cardiopulmonary disease, is essential to guide successful therapy. Machine learning may improve risk management and harness clinical variability in PAH.
methodsWe conducted a long-term retrospective observational study (median follow-up: 67 months) including 183 PAH patients from three Austrian PAH expert centers. Clinical, cardiopulmonary function, laboratory, imaging, and hemodynamic parameters were assessed. Cox proportional hazard Elastic Net and partitioning around medoid clustering were applied to establish a multi-parameter PAH mortality risk signature and investigate PAH phenotypes.
resultsSeven parameters identified by Elastic Net modeling, namely age, six-minute walking distance, red blood cell distribution width, cardiac index, pulmonary vascular resistance, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and right atrial area, constituted a highly predictive mortality risk signature (training cohort: concordance index = 0.82 [95%CI: 0.75 - 0.89], test cohort: 0.77 [0.66 - 0.88]). The Elastic Net signature demonstrated superior prognostic accuracy as compared with five established risk scores. The signature factors defined two clusters of PAH patients with distinct risk profiles. The high-risk/poor prognosis cluster was characterized by advanced age at diagnosis, poor cardiac output, increased red cell distribution width, higher pulmonary vascular resistance, and a poor six-minute walking test performance.
conclusionSupervised and unsupervised learning algorithms such as Elastic Net regression and medoid clustering are powerful tools for automated mortality risk prediction and clinical phenotyping in PAH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.