journal article·2025-08-21Open access

Machine Learning for Mortality Risk Prediction in Myocardial Infarction: A Clinical-Economic Decision Support Framework

Konstantinos P. Fourkiotis, Athanasios Tsadiras

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 16

Abstract

Myocardial infarction (MI) remains a leading cause of in-hospital mortality. Early identification of high-risk patients is essential for improving clinical outcomes and optimizing hospital resource allocation. This study presents a machine learning framework for predicting mortality following MI using a publicly available dataset of 1700 patient records, and after excluding records with over 20 missing values and features with more than 300 missing entries, the final dataset included 1547 patients and 113 variables, categorized as binary, categorical, integer, or continuous. Missing values were addressed using denoising autoencoders for continuous features and variational autoencoders for the remaining data. In contrast, feature selection was performed using Random Forest, and PowerTransformer scaling was applied, addressing class imbalance by using SMOTE. Twelve models were evaluated, including Focal-Loss Neural Networks, TabNet, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, Random Forest, SVM, Logistic Regression, and a voting ensemble. Performance was assessed using multiple metrics, with SVM achieving the highest F1 score (0.6905), ROC-AUC (0.8970), and MCC (0.6464), while Random Forest yielded perfect precision and specificity. To assess generalizability, a subpopulation external validation was conducted by training on male patients and testing on female patients. XGBoost and CatBoost reached the highest ROC-AUC (0.90), while Focal-Loss Neural Network achieved the best MCC (0.53). Overall, the proposed framework outperformed previous studies in key metrics and maintained better performance under demographic shift, supporting its potential for clinical decision-making in post-MI care.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Healthcare · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece

References (57)

Show source-provided references
1. National and Subnational Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases in Iran from 1990 to 2021: Results from Global Burden of Diseases 2021 Study10.5334/gh.1429 ↗
2. World Health Organization (2025, June 28). Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs). Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds).
3. The Predictive Value of Machine Learning for Mortality Risk in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1186/s40001-023-01027-4 ↗
4. Salari, N., Morddarvanjoghi, F., Abdolmaleki, A., Rasoulpoor, S., Khaleghi, A.A., Hezarkhani, L.A., Shohaimi, S., and Mohammadi, M. (2023). The Global Prevalence of Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Cardiovasc. Disord., 23.10.1186/s12872-023-03231-w ↗
5. Yang, Y., Tang, J., Ma, L., Wu, F., and Guan, X. (2025). A Systematic Comparison of Short-Term and Long-Term Mortality Prediction in Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Machine Learning Models. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 25.10.1186/s12911-025-03052-1 ↗
6. Risk Score to Predict Need for Intensive Care in Initially Hemodynamically Stable Adults With Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction10.1161/JAHA.118.008894 ↗
7. Lee, W., Lee, J., Woo, S.I., Choi, S.H., Bae, J.W., Jung, S., Jeong, M.H., and Lee, W.K. (2021). Machine Learning Enhances the Performance of Short- and Long-Term Mortality Prediction Model in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Sci. Rep., 11.10.1038/s41598-021-92362-1 ↗
8. Gupta, A.K., Mustafiz, C., Mutahar, D., Zaka, A., Parvez, R., Mridha, N., Stretton, B., Kovoor, J.G., Bacchi, S., and Ramponi, F. Machine Learning vs Traditional Approaches to Predict All-Cause Mortality for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Can. J. Cardiol., 2025. in press.10.1016/j.cjca.2025.01.037 ↗
9. Assessment of the Prognostic Performance of TIMI, PAMI, CADILLAC and GRACE Scores for Short-Term Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Revascularisation: A Prospective Observational Study10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091028 ↗
10. Predicting Complications of Myocardial Infarction Within Several Hours of Hospitalization Using Data Mining Techniques10.1016/j.imu.2023.101361 ↗
11. Multi-Label Classification of Biomedical Data10.3892/mi.2024.192 ↗
12. Early Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Machine Learning Techniques
13. Lokeswar Reddy, K., and Thangam, S. (2022, January 20–22). Predicting Relapse of the Myocardial Infarction in Hospitalized Patients. Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference for Emerging Technology (INCET), Belgaum, India.10.1109/INCET54531.2022.9825439 ↗
14. Machine Learning for ECG Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Occluded Myocardial Infarction10.1038/s41591-023-02396-3 ↗
15. Missing Data Imputation in the Electronic Health Record Using Deeply Learned Autoencoders
16. Handling Missing Values in Healthcare Data: A Systematic Review of Deep Learning-Based Imputation Techniques10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102587 ↗
17. AutoPopulus: A Novel Framework for Autoencoder Imputation on Large Clinical Datasets
18. Genomic Data Imputation with Variational Autoencoders10.1093/gigascience/giaa082 ↗
19. A New Family of Power Transformations to Improve Normality or Symmetry10.1093/biomet/87.4.954 ↗
20. Kuhn, M., and Johnson, K. (2013). Applied Predictive Modeling, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3 ↗
21. Zhu, J., Pu, S., He, J., Su, D., Cai, W., Xu, X., and Liu, H. (2024). Processing Imbalanced Medical Data at the Data Level with Assisted-Reproduction Data as an Example. BioData Min., 17.10.1186/s13040-024-00384-y ↗
22. Cusworth, S., Gkoutos, G.V., and Acharjee, A. (2024). A Novel Generative Adversarial Networks Modelling for the Class Imbalance Problem in High-Dimensional Omics Data. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 24.10.1186/s12911-024-02487-2 ↗
23. Liu, R., Wang, M., Zheng, T., Zhang, R., Li, N., Chen, Z., Yan, H., and Shi, Q. (2022). An Artificial Intelligence-Based Risk Prediction Model of Myocardial Infarction. BMC Bioinformatics, 23.10.1186/s12859-022-04761-4 ↗
24. Batch-Balanced Focal Loss: A Hybrid Solution to Class Imbalance in Deep Learning10.1117/1.JMI.10.5.051809 ↗
25. Stacked Denoising Autoencoders: Learning Useful Representations in a Deep Network with a Local Denoising Criterion
26. Learning in Nonstationary Environments: A Survey10.1109/MCI.2015.2471196 ↗
27. Ahsan, M.M., Mahmud, M.A.P., Saha, P.K., Gupta, K.D., and Siddique, Z. (2021). Effect of Data Scaling Methods on Machine Learning Algorithms and Model Performance. Technologies, 9.10.3390/technologies9030052 ↗
28. Dimensionality Reduction by UMAP Reinforces Sample Heterogeneity Analysis in Bulk Transcriptomic Data10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109442 ↗
29. A Review of Feature Selection Methods on Synthetic Data10.1007/s10115-012-0487-8 ↗
30. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., and Sturdivant, R.X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression, Wiley. [3rd ed.].10.1002/9781118548387 ↗
31. Support-Vector Networks10.1023/A:1022627411411 ↗
32. Nearest Neighbor Pattern Classification10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964 ↗
33. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
34. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
35. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.Y. (2017, January 4–9). LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Long Beach, CA, USA.
36. Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A.V., and Gulin, A. (2018, January 3–8). CatBoost: Unbiased Boosting with Categorical Features. Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Montréal, QC, Canada.
37. An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants10.1023/A:1007515423169 ↗
38. Learning Representations by Back-Propagating Errors10.1038/323533a0 ↗
39. Lin, T.Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., and Dollár, P. (2017, January 22–29). Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), Venice, Italy. Available online: https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ICCV_2017/papers/Lin_Focal_Loss_for_ICCV_2017_paper.pdf.10.1109/ICCV.2017.324 ↗
40. Arik, S.O., and Pfister, T. (2021, January 2–9). TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Event. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07442.
41. Random Search for Hyper-Parameter Optimization
42. Rockenschaub, P., Akay, E.M., Carlisle, B.G., Hilbert, A., Wendland, J., Meyer-Eschenbach, F., Näher, A.F., Frey, D., and Madai, V.I. (2025). External validation of AI-based scoring systems in the ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 25.10.1186/s12911-024-02830-7 ↗
43. Learning from Class-Imbalanced Data: Review of Methods and Applications10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.035 ↗
44. van den Goorbergh, R., van Smeden, M., Timmerman, D., and Van Calster, B. (2022). The Harm of Class Imbalance Corrections for Risk Prediction Models. medRxiv.
45. AUC: A Misleading Measure of the Performance of Predictive Distribution Models10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00358.x ↗
46. Saito, T., and Rehmsmeier, M. (2015). The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Datasets. PLoS ONE, 10.10.1371/journal.pone.0118432 ↗
47. The Truth of the F-Measure
48. An Insight into Classification with Imbalanced Data: Empirical Results and Current Trends on Using Data Intrinsic Characteristics10.1016/j.ins.2013.07.007 ↗
49. Kubat, M., and Matwin, S. (1997, January 8–12). Addressing the Curse of Imbalanced Training Sets: One-Sided Selection. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Nashville, TN, USA.
50. An Introduction to ROC Analysis10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ↗
51. Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Secondary Structure of T4 Phage Lysozyme10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 ↗
52. Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation
53. Using Emergency Department Triage for Machine Learning-Based Admission and Mortality Prediction10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001068 ↗
54. On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 ↗
55. Diagnostic Tests. 1: Sensitivity and Specificity10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552 ↗
56. Shreffler, J., and Huecker, M.R. (2025, May 20). Type I and Type II Errors and Statistical Power, StatPearls [Internet], Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557530/.
57. The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Machine Learning Tool That Can Prevent Untimely Intensive Care Unit Discharge10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.018 ↗