ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Development and validation of an interpretable machine learning model for predicting 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major contributor to global cardiovascular mortality and accurate prognosis is critical for guiding clinical decision-making. This study aimed to develop and validate interpretable machine learning (ML) models for predicting 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in hospitalized CAD patients.
methodsA prospective cohort of 705 CAD patients was included and randomly divided into training (n = 494) and validation (n = 211) sets. Key predictors were selected using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Four survival-based models were developed, and model performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) analysis was applied to enhance model interpretability.
resultsA total of 705 hospitalized CAD patients were included (mean age 63.2 years; 72.5% men), of whom 221 (31.3%) developed MACEs during the 5-year follow-up. LASSO regression revealed 11 key predictors, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, nitrate use, CAD duration, depressive symptoms, and age. Among the four models, the random survival forest (RSF) model showed favourable discrimination performance, with C-index of 0.804 (95% CI: 0.770-0.837) in the training cohort and 0.710 (95% CI: 0.650-0.768) in the validation cohort. The RSF model also showed acceptable calibration, achieving the lowest Brier score in the validation cohort. Decision curve analysis (DCA) demonstrated that the RSF model provided potential clinical benefit over the treat-all and treat-none strategies across a wide range of risk thresholds. SHAP analysis revealed that the LVEF, age, and number of diseased vessels were the most important predictors of 5-year MACEs.
conclusionsThe RSF model demonstrated relatively favourable discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility for predicting 5-year MACEs in hospitalized CAD patients. These findings suggest that ML-based approaches may assist in individualized risk stratification and guide secondary prevention strategies.
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.