Cited by 75Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in HealthcareAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

Machine learning improves risk stratification after acute coronary syndrome

Open access
Myers, Paul D., Scirica, Benjamin M., Stultz, Collin M.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The accurate assessment of a patient’s risk of adverse events remains a mainstay of clinical care. Commonly used risk metrics have been based on logistic regression models that incorporate aspects of the medical history, presenting signs and symptoms, and lab values. More sophisticated methods, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), form an attractive platform to build risk metrics because they can easily incorporate disparate pieces of data, yielding classifiers with improved performance. Using two cohorts consisting of patients admitted with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, we constructed an ANN that identifies patients at high risk of cardiovascular death (CVD). The ANN was trained and tested using patient subsets derived from a cohort containing 4395 patients (Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0.743) and validated on an independent holdout set containing 861 patients (AUC 0.767). The ANN 1-year Hazard Ratio for CVD was 3.72 (95% confidence interval 1.04–14.3) after adjusting for the TIMI Risk Score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and B-type natriuretic peptide. A unique feature of our approach is that it captures small changes in the ST segment over time that cannot be detected by visual inspection. These findings highlight the important role that ANNs can play in risk stratification.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-12951-x

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Healthcare systems have increasingly sought to use ML to assist in risk stratification, and these ML models may outperform statistical models in calibration and discrimination.

    “Healthcare systems have increasingly sought to use ML to assist in risk stratification, and these ML models may outperform statistical models in calibration and discrimination.”
  • ML models have been shown to better predict mortality than conventional logistic regression after liver cancer surgery, aortic aneurysm surgery, and cardiac surgery.

    “These ML models have been shown to better predict mortality than conventional logistic regression after liver cancer surgery, aortic aneurysm surgery, and cardiac surgery.”
  • Multiple ML models that risk-stratify patients with a disease or prepare patients for surgery have been recently developed and validated.

    “Multiple ML models that risk-stratify patients with a disease or prepare patients for surgery have been recently developed and validated (16, 20–25).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, P. D., Scirica, B. M., & Stultz, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Stultz, Collin M.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-10-04
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
12692-12692
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2759932154
Cited by
75
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Nature
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
acute coronary syndrome, risk stratification, artificial neural networks, cardiovascular mortality prediction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ST-segment changes, TIMI risk score, left ventricular ejection fraction, brain natriuretic peptide, machine learning in cardiology
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Cardiovascular, Cohort Studies, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Neural Networks, Computer, Risk Assessment, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Acute Coronary Syndrome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review