<p>Machine Learning to Predict the 1-Year Mortality Rate After Acute Anterior Myocardial Infarction in Chinese Patients</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A formal risk assessment for identifying high-risk patients is essential in clinical practice and promoted in guidelines for the management of anterior acute myocardial infarction. In this study, we sought to evaluate the performance of different machine learning models in predicting the 1-year mortality rate of anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients and to compare the utility of these models to the conventional Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk scores. We enrolled all of the patients aged >18 years with discharge diagnoses of anterior STEMI in the Western China Hospital, Sichuan University, from January 2011 to January 2017. A total of 1244 patients were included in this study. The mean patient age was 63.8±12.9 years, and the proportion of males was 78.4%. The majority (75.18%) received revascularization therapy. In the prediction of the 1-year mortality rate, the areas under the curve (AUCs) of the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) of the six models ranged from 0.709 to 0.942. Among all models, XGBoost achieved the highest accuracy (92%), specificity (99%) and f1 score (0.72) for predictions with the full variable model. After feature selection, XGBoost still obtained the highest accuracy (93%), specificity (99%) and f1 score (0.73). In conclusion, machine learning algorithms can accurately predict the rate of death after a 1-year follow-up of anterior STEMI, especially the XGBoost model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".