Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35147666›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2022

Personalized Surgical Transfusion Risk Prediction Using Machine Learning to Guide Preoperative Type and Screen Orders.

Sunny S Lou, Hanyang Liu, Chenyang Lu, Troy S Wildes, Bruce L Hall, Thomas Kannampallil

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07223853 (Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07223853 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2025 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsSurgeryArmsS-PATH clinical decision support system, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sunny S LouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.ORCID 0000-0002-4215-605X
Hanyang LiuDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Chenyang LuDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Troy S WildesDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Bruce L HallDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; BJC HealthCare, St. Louis, Missouri.
Thomas KannampallilDepartment of Anesthesiology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN ANESTHESIOLOGY RESEARCHT32GM108539 · NIGMS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Aaron J Norris · 2014 to 2026
$4.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM108539
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate estimation of surgical transfusion risk is essential for efficient allocation of blood bank resources and for other aspects of anesthetic planning. This study hypothesized that a machine learning model incorporating both surgery- and patient-specific variables would outperform the traditional approach that uses only procedure-specific information, allowing for more efficient allocation of preoperative type and screen orders.

methodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File was used to train four machine learning models to predict the likelihood of red cell transfusion using surgery-specific and patient-specific variables. A baseline model using only procedure-specific information was created for comparison. The models were trained on surgical encounters that occurred at 722 hospitals in 2016 through 2018. The models were internally validated on surgical cases that occurred at 719 hospitals in 2019. Generalizability of the best-performing model was assessed by external validation on surgical cases occurring at a single institution in 2020.

resultsTransfusion prevalence was 2.4% (73,313 of 3,049,617), 2.2% (23,205 of 1,076,441), and 6.7% (1,104 of 16,053) across the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. The gradient boosting machine outperformed the baseline model and was the best- performing model. At a fixed 96% sensitivity, this model had a positive predictive value of 0.06 and 0.21 and recommended type and screens for 36% and 30% of the patients in internal and external validation, respectively. By comparison, the baseline model at the same sensitivity had a positive predictive value of 0.04 and 0.144 and recommended type and screens for 57% and 45% of the patients in internal and external validation, respectively. The most important predictor variables were overall procedure-specific transfusion rate and preoperative hematocrit.

conclusionsA personalized transfusion risk prediction model was created using both surgery- and patient-specific variables to guide preoperative type and screen orders and showed better performance compared to the traditional procedure-centric approach. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionMachine LearningHumansPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35147666
PMCPMC9177553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.