Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30074930›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2018

Supervised Machine-learning Predictive Analytics for Prediction of Postinduction Hypotension.

Samir Kendale, Prathamesh Kulkarni, Andrew D Rosenberg, Jing Wang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Hierarchical Poincaré analysis for anaesthesia monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samir KendaleFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.
Prathamesh Kulkarni
Andrew D Rosenberg
Jing Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

what we already know about this topicWHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW:

background: Hypotension is a risk factor for adverse perioperative outcomes. Machine-learning methods allow large amounts of data for development of robust predictive analytics. The authors hypothesized that machine-learning methods can provide prediction for the risk of postinduction hypotension.

methodsData was extracted from the electronic health record of a single quaternary care center from November 2015 to May 2016 for patients over age 12 that underwent general anesthesia, without procedure exclusions. Multiple supervised machine-learning classification techniques were attempted, with postinduction hypotension (mean arterial pressure less than 55 mmHg within 10 min of induction by any measurement) as primary outcome, and preoperative medications, medical comorbidities, induction medications, and intraoperative vital signs as features. Discrimination was assessed using cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The best performing model was tuned and final performance assessed using split-set validation.

resultsOut of 13,323 cases, 1,185 (8.9%) experienced postinduction hypotension. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve using logistic regression was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.72), support vector machines was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.60), naive Bayes was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.69), k-nearest neighbor was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.65), linear discriminant analysis was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.73), random forest was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.75), neural nets 0.71 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.71), and gradient boosting machine 0.76 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.77). Test set area for the gradient boosting machine was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.77).

conclusionsThe success of this technique in predicting postinduction hypotension demonstrates feasibility of machine-learning models for predictive analytics in the field of anesthesiology, with performance dependent on model selection and appropriate tuning.

Indexed as

Supervised Machine LearningAdultAgedAnesthesia, GeneralFemaleHumansHypotensionMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.