ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
The development and validation of a prognostic prediction modeling study in acute myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: hemorrhea and major cardiovascular adverse events.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Machine Learning Models for Predicting Mortality after Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Correlation of blood lipids, glucose, and inflammatory indices with the occurrence and prognosis of lesion complexity in unstable angina, a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Physiological-immune resilience risk assessment model for predicting adverse cardiac outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is one of the most important diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in cardiology. At present, the traditional prediction models for postoperative events after PCI are ineffective, but machine learning has great potential in identification and prediction of risk. Machine learning can reduce overfitting through regularization techniques, cross-validation and ensemble learning, making the model more accurate in predicting large amounts of complex unknown data. This study sought to identify the risk of hemorrhea and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients after PCI through machine learning. Methods: The entire study population consisted of 7,931 individual patients who underwent PCI at Jiangsu Provincial Hospital and The Affiliated Wuxi Second People's Hospital from January 2007 to January 2022. The risk of postoperative hemorrhea and MACE (including cardiac death and in-stent restenosis) was predicted by 53 clinical features after admission. The population was assigned to the training set and the validation set in a specific ratio by simple randomization. Different machine learning algorithms, including eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), random forest (RF), and deep learning neural network (DNN), were trained to build prediction models. A 5-fold cross-validation was applied to correct errors. Several evaluation indexes, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), accuracy (Acc), sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec), and net reclassification improvement (NRI), were used to compare the predictive performance. To improve the interpretability of the model and identify risk factors individually, SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) was introduced. Results: In this study, 306 patients (3.9%) experienced hemorrhea, 107 patients (1.3%) experienced cardiac death, and 218 patients (2.7%) developed in-stent restenosis. In the training set and validation set, except for previous PCI and statins, there were no significant differences. XGBoost was observed to be the best predictor of every event, namely hemorrhea [AUC: 0.921, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.864-0.978, Acc: 0.845, Sens: 0.851, Spec: 0.837 and NRI: 0.140], cardiac death (AUC: 0.939, 95% CI: 0.903-0.975, Acc: 0.914, Sens: 0.950, Spec: 0.800 and NRI: 0.148), and in-stent restenosis (AUC: 0.915; 95% CI: 0.863-0.967, Acc: 0.834, Sens: 0.778, Spec: 0.902 and NRI: 0.077). SHAP showed that the number of stents had the greatest influence on hemorrhea, while age and drug-coated balloon were the main factors in cardiogenic death and stent restenosis (all P<0.05). Conclusions: The XGBoost model (machine learning) performed better than the traditional logistic regression model in identifying hemorrhea and MACE after PCI. Machine learning models can be used as a tool for risk prediction. The machine learning model described in this study can personalize the prediction of hemorrhea and MACE after PCI for specific patients, helping clinicians adjust intervenable features.
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.