ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Machine learning algorithms to predict major bleeding after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Complications and Prognostication in Perioperative Medicine: A Systematic Review and PROBAST Assessment of Machine Learning Tools.Anesthesiology · 2024Pooled it
- Multi-Output Machine Learning for Prediction of Postoperative Outcomes After Cardiac Surgery Using Patient Blood Management Biomarkers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Building and Validating an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Health-Promoting Behaviors in Older Adults: A Multicenter Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- An interpretable machine learning tool for predicting perioperative cardiac events in patients scheduled for hip fracture surgery: insights from the multicenter LUSHIP study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Shaping the future of cardiac interventions and cardiac surgeries: The impact of virtual reality and artificial intelligence.Global cardiology science & practice · 2025Review
- Review
- Machine Learning Models With Prognostic Implications for Predicting Gastrointestinal Bleeding After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Guiding Personalized Medicine: Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Postoperative major bleeding is a common problem in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. We evaluated the performance of machine learning (ML) methods to predict postoperative major bleeding. Methods: A total of 1,045 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were enrolled. Their datasets were assigned randomly to training (70%) or a testing set (30%). The primary outcome was major bleeding defined as the universal definition of perioperative bleeding (UDPB) classes 3-4. We constructed a reference logistic regression (LR) model using known predictors. We also developed several modern ML algorithms. In the test set, we compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of these ML algorithms with the reference LR model results, and the TRUST and WILL-BLEED risk score. Calibration analysis was undertaken using the calibration belt method. Results: The prevalence of postoperative major bleeding was 7.1% (74/1,045). For major bleeds, the conditional inference random forest (CIRF) model showed the highest AUC [0.831 (0.732-0.930)], and the stochastic gradient boosting (SGBT) and random forest models demonstrated the next best results [0.820 (0.742-0.899) and 0.810 (0.719-0.902)]. The AUCs of all ML models were higher than [0.629 (0.517-0.641) and 0.557 (0.449-0.665)], as achieved by TRUST and WILL-BLEED, respectively. Conclusion: ML methods successfully predicted major bleeding after cardiac surgery, with greater performance compared with previous scoring models. Modern ML models may enhance the identification of high-risk major bleeding subpopulations.
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.