ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024
Validation of machine learning-based risk stratification scores for patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute Coronary Syndromes: State-of-the-Art Diagnosis, Management, and Secondary Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Deep Learning-Based Segmentation of Coronary Arteries and Stenosis Detection in X-Ray Coronary Angiography.JACC. Advances · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to validate the machine learning-based Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 3.0 score and PRAISE (Prediction of Adverse Events following an Acute Coronary Syndrome) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for predicting mortality. Methods and results: Data of consecutive patients with ACS treated with PCI in a tertiary centre in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021 were used for external validation. The GRACE 3.0 score for predicting in-hospital mortality was evaluated in 2759 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) treated with PCI. The PRAISE score for predicting one-year mortality was evaluated in 4347 patients with ACS treated with PCI. Both risk scores were compared with the GRACE 2.0 score. The GRACE 3.0 score showed excellent discrimination [c-statistic 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.94)] for predicting in-hospital mortality, with well-calibrated predictions (calibration-in-the large [CIL] -0.19 [95% CI -0.45, 0.07]). The PRAISE score demonstrated moderate discrimination [c-statistic 0.75 (95% CI 0.70, 0.80)] and overestimated the one-year risk of mortality [CIL -0.56 (95% CI -0.73, -0.39)]. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the GRACE 3.0 score offered improved risk prediction compared with the GRACE 2.0 score, while the PRAISE score did not. Conclusion: This study in ACS patients treated with PCI provides suggestive evidence that the GRACE 3.0 score effectively predicts in-hospital mortality beyond the GRACE 2.0 score. The PRAISE score demonstrated limited potential for predicting one-year mortality risk. Further external validation studies in larger cohorts including patients without PCI are warranted.
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.