ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Interpretable machine learning analysis of routine blood biomarkers and derived indicators for predicting coronary heart disease in patients with carotid stenosis.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) and carotid stenosis share similar pathogenic mechanisms such as chronic inflammation, metabolic dysregulation, oxidative stress, and immune imbalance. These conditions are often comorbid. This study aimed to develop and validate an effective machine learning model that uses routine blood biomarkers to predict CHD risk in patients with carotid stenosis.
methodsClinical data from 723 patients diagnosed with carotid artery stenosis between January 2019 and December 2024 were retrospectively collected, including demographic characteristics, hematological and biochemical laboratory parameters, and their derived composite indices. We used six feature selection methods and 11 machine learning (ML) algorithms to construct predictive models, and we systematically compared their performance. To interpret the established predictive model, we applied SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis to visualize and elucidate the risk prediction framework.
resultsWe identified the intersection of six feature selection methods, screened a total of nine potential predictors related to CHD, and used them to construct a prediction model. Cross-validation results demonstrated that the predictive model based on the random forest (RF) algorithm achieved the best performance among all evaluated algorithms (AUC = 0.800; sensitivity = 0.729; specificity = 0.792; F1 score = 0.733). The SHAP plots for RF indicate that estimating residual cholesterol (RC), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) are the three most important features for predicting CHD. Significant differences were observed in SHAP values for key biomarkers (including RC, MLR) across varying degrees of carotid artery stenosis.
conclusionsThe RF model achieved the best predictive performance in predicting CHD in patients with carotid stenosis. Elevated metabolic and immunoinflammatory markers significantly enhanced the predictive power of the model. Prospective multicenter validation is warranted to confirm its generalizability across diverse populations.
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.