ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2022
Development of machine learning models for mortality risk prediction after cardiac surgery.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Role of the Cardiothoracic Surgeon in the Age of AI-Are the Robots Going to Take Our Jobs?Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Better Discrimination, Unchanged Practice: Are Machine Learning Models Ready to Replace Established Risk Scores in Cardiac Surgery? A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Risk of complications in vascular surgery: development of a clinical predictive model.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine: prevention, diagnosis, and intervention.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Shaping the future of cardiac interventions and cardiac surgeries: The impact of virtual reality and artificial intelligence.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based hybrid risk estimation system (ERES) in cardiac surgery: Supplementary insights from the ASA score analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence to predict biomarkers for new-onset atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2025Article
- Enhancing mortality prediction after coronary artery bypass graft: a machine learning approach utilizing EuroScore.Future science OA · 2024Article
- Construction and validation of a nomogram prediction model for the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.Artificial intelligence review · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We developed machine learning models that combine preoperative and intraoperative risk factors to predict mortality after cardiac surgery. Methods: Machine learning involving random forest, neural network, support vector machine, and gradient boosting machine was developed and compared with the risk scores of EuroSCORE I and II, Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as a logistic regression model. Clinical data were collected from patients undergoing adult cardiac surgery at the First Medical Centre of Chinese PLA General Hospital between December 2008 and December 2017. The primary outcome was post-operative mortality. Model performance was estimated using several metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The visualization algorithm was implemented using Shapley's additive explanations. Results: A total of 5,443 patients were enrolled during the study period. The mean EuroSCORE II score was 3.7%, and the actual in-hospital mortality rate was 2.7%. For predicting operative mortality after cardiac surgery, the AUC scores were 0.87, 0.79, 0.81, and 0.82 for random forest, neural network, support vector machine, and gradient boosting machine, compared with 0.70, 0.73, 0.71, and 0.74 for EuroSCORE I and II, STS, and logistic regression model. Shapley's additive explanations analysis of random forest yielded the top-20 predictors and individual-level explanations for each prediction. Conclusions: Machine learning models based on available clinical data may be superior to clinical scoring tools in predicting postoperative mortality in patients following cardiac surgery. Explanatory models show the potential to provide personalized risk profiles for individuals by accounting for the contribution of influencing factors. Additional prospective multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the clinical benefit of these machine learning-driven models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.