SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparing machine learning models and traditional approaches for predicting obstructive coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obstructive coronary artery disease (oCAD) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and accurate prediction is essential for guiding clinical decision-making and secondary prevention. However, the potential of machine learning (ML) models for predicting oCAD remains insufficiently explored; therefore, this study aimed to compare the performance of ML methods with traditional approaches and evaluate differences among ML algorithm classes. Methods: A systematic search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PubMed was conducted from inception to February 9, 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool AUCs of ML algorithms and compare the predictive performance of ML models with traditional approaches for oCAD. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to explore heterogeneity. Results: A total of 41 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. ML models showed significantly higher predictive performance than traditional approaches in 12 studies, although with substantial heterogeneity (MD: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.05-0.13; Conclusions: ML shows promising discrimination relative to traditional scores. Future studies should emphasize adequate sample-size calculation, appropriate feature-selection strategies, and standardized handling of missing data and focus on developing and validating ML models based on accessible and noninvasive data sources.
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.