ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Models and Logistic Regression for Acute Myocardial Infarction Risk Prediction in the COVID-19 Vaccination Era: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The integration of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare systems offers transformative potential for enhancing healthcare administration and improving insurance risk modeling through more accurate patient stratification. This study evaluates the predictive performance of support vector machines (SVM), gradient boosting (GBM), and random forest (RF) against multivariate logistic regression for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) risk stratification, focusing on its implications for healthcare administration and insurance modeling. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted on 901 patients at Alexandra Hospital of Athens (January 2021 to December 2023). Inclusion was restricted to first-incident AMI cases, verified through clinical and digital registries; patients with a prior history of AMI were strictly excluded. Predictor variables included standardized clinical data, lifestyle factors, and COVID-19 vaccination status, all verified prior to the AMI event. Models were trained and validated using a 70/30 hold-out split (n=631 training; n=270 testing), a strategy selected to provide a stable testing set for benchmark comparison. Performance was evaluated based on accuracy, sensitivity, and area under the curve (AUC) to assess how predictive precision can enhance organizational risk assessment and resource allocation. Results Among the predictive models, SVM achieved the highest overall accuracy (62.08%), while GBM demonstrated a modest discriminative capacity with an AUC of 0.63 and a sensitivity of 0.76. Crucially, within this specific clinical cohort, COVID-19 vaccination status showed no statistically significant association with AMI risk (OR 1.12, p=0.41). These results represent an exploratory comparison of algorithmic performance for risk prediction rather than a finalized tool for robust clinical stratification. Conclusion While the accuracy gain over logistic regression is incremental, SVM and GBM models provide a more refined classification for high-risk cohorts. These findings suggest that AI-based stratification can optimize risk management frameworks and actuarial modeling, effectively bridging clinical cardiology with insurance science.
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.