Cited by 86Acute Myocardial Infarction ResearchArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Deep-learning-based risk stratification for mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Open access
Kwon, Joon-myoung, Jeon, Ki-Hyun, Kim, Hyue Mee, Kim, Min Jeong, Lim, Sungmin, Kim, Kyung-Hee, Song, Pil Sang, Park, Jinsik +2 more·2019·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Conventional risk stratification models for mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have potential limitations. This study aimed to develop and validate deep-learning-based risk stratification for the mortality of patients with AMI (DAMI). METHODS: The data of 22,875 AMI patients from the Korean working group of the myocardial infarction (KorMI) registry were exclusively divided into 12,152 derivation data of 36 hospitals and 10,723 validation data of 23 hospitals. The predictor variables were the initial demographic and laboratory data. The endpoints were in-hospital mortality and 12-months mortality. We compared the DAMI performance with the global registry of acute coronary event (GRACE) score, acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) score, and the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) score using the validation data. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality for the study subjects was 4.4% and 6-month mortality after survival upon discharge was 2.2%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the DAMI were 0.905 [95% confidence interval 0.902-0.909] and 0.870 [0.865-0.876] for the ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients, respectively; these results significantly outperformed those of the GRACE (0.851 [0.846-0.856], 0.810 [0.803-0.819]), ACTION (0.852 [0.847-0.857], 0.806 [0.799-0.814] and TIMI score (0.781 [0.775-0.787], 0.593[0.585-0.603]). DAMI predicted 30.9% of patients more accurately than the GRACE score. As secondary outcome, during the 6-month follow-up, the high risk group, defined by the DAMI, has a significantly higher mortality rate than the low risk group (17.1% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The DAMI predicted in-hospital mortality and 12-month mortality of AMI patients more accurately than the existing risk scores and other machine-learning methods.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0224502

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • 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).”
  • 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.”

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
Kwon, J.-M., Jeon, K.-H., Kim, H. M., Kim, M. J., Lim, S., Kim, K.-H., Song, P. S., Park, J., Choi, R. K., & Oh, B.-H.
Affiliations
Sejong Institute (KR)
Corresponding author
Jeon, Ki-Hyun
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-10-31
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
e0224502
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982374880
Cited by
86
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 3
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Korea Meteorological Administration
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
acute myocardial infarction, deep learning, risk stratification, mortality prediction, in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, GRACE risk score, TIMI score, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, risk prediction model validation, model generalization
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction, Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction, Deep Learning, Acute Disease, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Registries, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Time Factors, Hospital Mortality, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve, Republic of Korea

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