Risk Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Within One Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Machine Learning–Based Time-to-Event Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Conventional risk scores may not capture dynamic or nonlinear changes in postdischarge MACE risk, whereas machine learning (ML) approaches can improve predictive performance. However, few ML models have incorporated time-to-event analysis to reflect changes in MACE risk over time. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a time-to-event ML model for predicting MACE after PCI in patients with ACS and to identify the risk factors with time-varying contributions. METHODS: We analyzed electronic health records of 3159 patients with ACS who underwent PCI at a tertiary hospital in South Korea between 2008 and 2020. Six time-to-event ML models were developed using 54 variables. Model performance was evaluated using the time-dependent concordance index and Brier score. Variable importance was assessed using permutation importance and visualized with partial dependence plots to identify variables contributing to MACE risk over time. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 626 (19.8%) patients experienced MACE. The best-performing model achieved a time-dependent concordance index of 0.743 at day 30 and 0.616 at 1 year. Time-dependent Brier scores increased and remained stable across all ML models. Key predictors included contrast volume, age, medication adherence, coronary artery disease severity, and glomerular filtration rate. Contrast volume ≥300 mL, age ≥60 years, and medication adherence score ≥30 were associated with early postdischarge risk, whereas coronary artery disease severity and glomerular filtration rate became more influential beyond 60 days. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed time-to-event ML model effectively captured dynamic risk patterns after PCI and identified key predictors with time-varying effects. These findings may support individualized postdischarge management and early intervention strategies to prevent MACE in high-risk patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".