ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2026
Development and validation of machine learning-based in-hospital mortality predictive models for acute aortic syndrome in emergency departments.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to develop and validate a machine learning-based in-hospital mortality predictive model for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in the emergency department (ED) and to derive a simplified version suitable for rapid clinical application.
methodsIn this multi-center retrospective cohort study, AAS patient data from three hospitals were analyzed. The modeling cohort included data from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University and the People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, with Peking University Third Hospital data serving as the external test set. Four machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LR), multilayer perceptron (MLP), Gaussian naive Bayes (GNB), and random forest (RF)-were used to develop predictive models based on 34 early-accessible clinical variables. A simplified model was then derived based on five key variables (Stanford type, pericardial effusion, asymmetric peripheral arterial pulsation, decreased bowel sounds, and dyspnea) via Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression to improve ED applicability.
resultsA total of 929 patients were included in the modeling cohort, and 210 were included in the external test set. Four machine learning models based on 34 clinical variables were developed, achieving internal and external validation AUCs of 0.85-0.90 and 0.73-0.85, respectively. The simplified model incorporating five key variables demonstrated internal and external validation AUCs of 0.71-0.86 and 0.75-0.78, respectively. Both models showed robust calibration and predictive stability across datasets.
conclusionBoth kinds of models were built based on machine learning tools, and proved to have certain prediction performance and extrapolation.
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.