ReviewJournal of clinical medicine research2026
Application Progress of Machine Learning in Prognostic Prediction of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine research, 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
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become a cornerstone treatment for coronary artery disease; however, accurate prognostic prediction remains a significant clinical challenge. Machine learning technologies demonstrate tremendous potential in PCI prognostic prediction by analyzing vast amounts of clinical data and identifying complex nonlinear relationships among variables. This article systematically reviews recent advances in machine learning applications for PCI prognostic prediction, encompassing predictive targets including in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, bleeding complications, and long-term survival. Algorithms such as random forest, support vector machines, neural networks, and deep learning have demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to traditional risk scoring systems across multiple studies. Deep learning approaches exhibit particular advantages in processing multimodal data. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain regarding model interpretability, external validation, and clinical implementation. Future research should prioritize the development of explainable artificial intelligence systems, the conduct of multicenter validation studies, and the establishment of regulatory frameworks for clinical deployment.
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.