Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30282956›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2018

Derivation and Validation of Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery.

Hyung-Chul Lee, Hyun-Kyu Yoon, Karam Nam, Youn Joung Cho, Tae Kyong Kim, Won Ho Kim, Jae-Hyon Bahk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Big Data in cardiac surgery: real world and perspectives.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Hierarchical Poincaré analysis for anaesthesia monitoring.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hyung-Chul LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. azong@hanmail.net.
Hyun-Kyu YoonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. hyunkyu18@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5424-3559
Karam NamDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. karamnam@gmail.com.
Youn Joung ChoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. mingming7@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6478-8616
Tae Kyong KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. ktkktk@gmail.com.
Won Ho KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. wonhokim@snu.ac.kr.
Jae-Hyon BahkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Korea. bahkjh@snu.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning approaches were introduced for better or comparable predictive ability than statistical analysis to predict postoperative outcomes. We sought to compare the performance of machine learning approaches with that of logistic regression analysis to predict acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 2010 patients who underwent open heart surgery and thoracic aortic surgery. Baseline medical condition, intraoperative anesthesia, and surgery-related data were obtained. The primary outcome was postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) defined according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. The following machine learning techniques were used: decision tree, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machine, neural network classifier, and deep learning. The performance of these techniques was compared with that of logistic regression analysis regarding the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). During the first postoperative week, AKI occurred in 770 patients (38.3%). The best performance regarding AUC was achieved by the gradient boosting machine to predict the AKI of all stages (0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75⁻0.80) or stage 2 or 3 AKI. The AUC of logistic regression analysis was 0.69 (95% CI 0.66⁻0.72). Decision tree, random forest, and support vector machine showed similar performance to logistic regression. In our comprehensive comparison of machine learning approaches with logistic regression analysis, gradient boosting technique showed the best performance with the highest AUC and lower error rate. We developed an Internet⁻based risk estimator which could be used for real-time processing of patient data to estimate the risk of AKI at the end of surgery.

Indexed as

acute kidney injurycardiovascular surgerymachine learning

Identifiers

PMID30282956
PMCPMC6210196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.