ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Explainable artificial intelligence for predicting cardiovascular events in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) increases the risk of cardiovascular complications, and artificial intelligence (AI) offers promising tools for early risk prediction.
objectiveTo develop AI models capable of identifying predictors of cardiovascular events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective multicentre cohort, which included adult COVID-19 patients from 25 hospitals (March/2021-August/2022). Cardiovascular outcomes, inluding arrhythmia, acute heart failure, myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and pericarditis, were combined into a composite outcome. Two predictive models were developed using the Light gradient-boosting machine (LightGBM): model 1 used 59 variables (demographic, clinical, laboratory, and socioeconomic data) while model 2 used 52 variables (excluding socioeconomic factors). Model performance was assessed using accuracy, macro-F1, recall, precision, and area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values identified the most influencial predictors. To address class imbalance, we applied random oversampling.
resultsAmong 10,700 patients (median age 59 years [interquatile range 48-70]), 5.3% experienced the composite outcome. Both models showed moderate discrimination (AUROC: 0.752 and 0.760) and high accuracy (94.6% and 94.5%). However, class imbalance resulted in low macro-F1 scores (51.2% and 50.7%). F1 scores were high for the majority class (non-events: 97.2%) but very low for the minority class (cardiovascular events: 5.2% and 4.2%). Even after oversampling, performance for the minority class remained limited, with a maximum F1 score of 21.5%, primarily driven by gains in recall. SHAP analysis identified age, urea, platelet count, and oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen fraction (SatO2/FiO2) as key predictors.
conclusionDespite moderate AUROC and high accuracy, both AI models demonstrated limited ability to detect cardiovascular events due to class imbalance. The persistently low F1 score for the minority class underscores this limitation. Traditional rebalancing techniques produced only small gains, mostly improving recall occurring at the expense of precision. Age, urea levels, platelet count, and SatO2/FiO2 were identified as the most relevant predictors of cardiovascular complications in this cohort.
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.