Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38213372›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Artificial Intelligence in the Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Heart Failure or Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Apurva Popat, Sweta Yadav, Sagar K Patel, Sasanka Baddevolu, Susmitha Adusumilli, Nikitha Rao Dasari, Manoj Sundarasetty, Sunethra Anand, Jawahar Sankar, Yugandha G Jagtap

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Apurva PopatInternal Medicine, Marshfield Clinic Health System, Marshfield, USA.
Sweta YadavInternal Medicine, Gujarat Medical Education & Research Society (GMERS) Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Sagar K PatelInternal Medicine, Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhuj, IND.
Sasanka BaddevoluInternal Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, IND.
Susmitha AdusumilliCollege of Medicine, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, CHN.
Nikitha Rao DasariCollege of Medicine, Kamineni Academy of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Hyderabad, IND.
Manoj SundarasettyRadiodiagnosis, Bhaskar Medical College and General Hospital, Hyderabad, IND.
Sunethra AnandInternal Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, IND.
Jawahar SankarInternal Medicine, Chengalpattu Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, IND.
Yugandha G JagtapPaediatrics, General Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) Medical School, Mumbai, IND.
Osmania General Hospital · INMahatma Gandhi Mission Institute of Health Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligence in cardiologyartificial intelligence in medicinecardiogenic shockmachine learning in medicineprediction model in medicine

Identifiers

PMID38213372
PMCPMC10783597
OpenAlexW4389626880

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.