ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Establishment and validation of an interpretable machine learning-based predictive model for risk of post-PCI in-hospital heart failure in AIHD patients.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study intends to establish and validate an interpretable machine learning (ML) model based on clinical features for early prediction of the risk of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in-hospital heart failure (HF) in patients with acute ischemic heart disease (AIHD). Methods: This study retrospectively included AIHD patients who underwent PCI at the Affiliated Guangzhou Hospital of TCM of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine from January 2023 to May 2025. LASSO regression was utilized for feature screening first, and then seven predictive models for HF risk in AIHD patients were established using ML algorithms. The model performance was fully assessed on the validation set through the area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI, calibration curve and expected calibration error, recall, F1-score, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, and internal validation was conducted using the Bootstrap method. In addition, feature importance was evaluated by SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values, and individualized predictions were explained by Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME). Results: Two hundred and three patients with AIHD were ultimately included, of whom 55 (27.1%) experienced in-hospital HF. Of the seven ML models, the random forest (RF) model demonstrated optimal performance on the validation set, with an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.53-0.84) and an accuracy of 0.77; the calibration curve revealed high agreement between predicted and actual risks. Twelve predictive features associated with endpoint events were identified by LASSO regression, and the top five features contributing to the predictive efficacy of the RF model were age, monocyte count, heart rate, platelet count, and mean platelet volume according to the ranking of feature importance. In addition, the contribution of features to the prediction of HF risk was visualized by SHAP summary plots and LIME.Finally, an open Web-based prediction tool was deployed. Conclusion: This exploratory study developed a random forest (RF) model to predict the risk of post-PCI in-hospital HF in patients with AIHD. Based on the SHAP and LIME methods, the clinical interpretability of the model was significantly enhanced. Future research with larger sample sizes is warranted to optimize the training set and validate the generalizability of the model.
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.