ReviewCureus2023
Artificial Intelligence in the Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Heart Failure or Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of antihypertensive treatment on cardiovascular event reduction in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical medicine & research · 2024Pooled it
- Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Evolution of Risk Measurement Techniques and Assessment of Their Effectiveness (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2024Pooled it
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: applications and perspectives.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Interpretable artificial intelligence model for predicting heart failure severity after acute myocardial infarction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Machine learning algorithms to predict heart failure with preserved ejection fraction among patients with premature myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- The Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence in the Detection and Management of Atrial Fibrillation.Cureus · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing Cardiology through Artificial Intelligence-Big Data from Proactive Prevention to Precise Diagnostics and Cutting-Edge Treatment-A Comprehensive Review of the Past 5 Years.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) may have a negative impact on mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Early prediction of CS can result in improved survival. Artificial intelligence (AI) through machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in predictive medicine. Here, we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of these models in the early prediction of CS. A thorough search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from the time of inception until November 2, 2023, to find relevant studies. Our outcomes were area under the curve (AUC), the sensitivity and specificity of the ML model, the accuracy of the ML model, and the predictor variables that had the most impact in predicting CS. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Version 3.0 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Six studies were considered in our study. The pooled mean AUC was 0.808 (95% confidence interval: 0.727, 0.890). The AUC in the included studies ranged from 0.77 to 0.91. ML models performed well, with accuracy ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 and sensitivity and specificity of 58%-78% and 88%-93%, respectively. Age, blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, and blood glucose were the most significant variables required by ML models to acquire their outputs. In conclusion, AI has the potential for early prediction of CS, which may lead to a decrease in the high mortality rate associated with it. Future studies are needed to confirm the results.
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.