ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Multicenter development and validation of machine-learning risk models to predict procedural complete revascularization and in-hospital heart failure in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In-hospital heart failure (HF) remains common after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and is associated with adverse in-hospital outcomes. In addition, whether procedural complete revascularization (CR) can be achieved during the index PCI is clinically relevant but often constrained in real-world practice. We aimed to develop and externally validate machine-learning (ML) models for these two complementary prediction tasks. Methods: We conducted a multicenter cohort study of STEMI patients treated with PPCI from three hospitals. Patients from Hezhou People's Hospital (January 2020 to June 2024) comprised the training cohort ( Results: For in-hospital HF prediction, CatBoost showed the best overall performance in the independent testing cohort (AUC: 0.973; 95% CI: 0.957-0.989; accuracy: 88.6%), with good calibration and favorable net benefit on DCA. For procedural CR prediction, CatBoost was also selected as the primary model based on its overall performance profile in the independent testing cohort (AUC: 0.970; 95% CI: 0.954-0.987; accuracy: 92.0%), with acceptable calibration and positive net benefit across a broad range of threshold probabilities. Key predictors included LAD involvement, age, symptom-to-guidewire crossing time, and markers related to inflammation, coagulation, renal function, and lipid metabolism. Conclusions: In a three-center cohort, we developed and externally validated two ML models for predicting subsequent in-hospital HF after index PPCI and the feasibility of achieving procedural CR during the index PCI. Both models demonstrated good discrimination, calibration, clinical utility, and interpretability, supporting peri-procedural risk stratification and catheterization-laboratory decision support in STEMI patients treated with PPCI.
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.