ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Long-Term Mortality in Patients After Cardiac Surgery.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global performance of machine learning models to predict all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Dynamic BUN patterns in the ICU: risk stratification and prognosis following cardiac surgery.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Predictive value of hemoglobin-to-red cell distribution width ratio for mortality in new-onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery a machine learning study based on the MIMIC-IV database.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Symptoms and causes of obstacles in AI-based telemonitoring: strategies for system development through a CRISP-DM lens.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning for prognostic prediction in critically ill patients with coronary artery disease: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in predicting the results of open-heart surgery: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based analysis of factors influencing surgical duration in type A aortic dissection.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The relationship between blood glucose and clinical outcomes after extracorporeal circulation: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Association Between the Red Blood Cell Distribution Width and 30-Day Mortality in Intensive Care Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Study Based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV Database.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2024Observational
- Long-Term Mortality Predictors Using a Machine-Learning Approach in Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia After Peripheral Vascular Intervention.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Predicting the unpredictable in cardiothoracic surgery.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of 1-year mortality in hypertensive patients undergoing coronary revascularization surgery.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence for clinical decision support for monitoring patients in cardiovascular ICUs: A systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to construct and validate several machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict long-term mortality and identify risk factors in unselected patients post-cardiac surgery. Methods: The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database was used to perform a retrospective administrative database study. Candidate predictors consisted of the demographics, comorbidity, vital signs, laboratory test results, scoring systems, and treatment information on the first day of ICU admission. Four-year mortality was set as the study outcome. We used the ML methods of logistic regression (LR), artificial neural network (NNET), naïve bayes (NB), gradient boosting machine (GBM), adapting boosting (Ada), random forest (RF), bagged trees (BT), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB). The prognostic capacity and clinical utility of these ML models were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Of 7,368 patients in MIMIC-III included in the final cohort, a total of 1,337 (18.15%) patients died during a 4-year follow-up. Among 65 variables extracted from the database, a total of 25 predictors were selected using recursive feature elimination and included in the subsequent analysis. The Ada model performed best among eight models in both discriminatory ability with the highest AUC of 0.801 and goodness of fit (visualized by calibration curve). Moreover, the DCA shows that the net benefit of the RF, Ada, and BT models surpassed that of other ML models for almost all threshold probability values. Additionally, through the Ada technique, we determined that red blood cell distribution width (RDW), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), SAPS II, anion gap (AG), age, urine output, chloride, creatinine, congestive heart failure, and SOFA were the Top 10 predictors in the feature importance rankings. Conclusions: The Ada model performs best in predicting 4-year mortality after cardiac surgery among the eight ML models, which might have significant application in the development of early warning systems for patients following operations.
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.