ArticleJAMA network open2023
Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Identify Patients Before Surgery at High Risk for Postoperative Adverse Events.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frailty Screening Using the Risk Analysis Index: A User Guide.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of machine learning models on clinician prediction of postoperative complications: the Perioperative ORACLE randomised clinical trial.British journal of anaesthesia · 2024Trial
- Clinical heterogeneity in performance of a commercial prediction model for clinical deterioration.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Decision-centered artificial intelligence for perioperative care outside the operating room: a practical review for surgeons.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for predicting perioperative anaesthetic complications and supporting clinical decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- PORT: Generative EHR Pretraining for Pediatric Intraoperative Risk Prediction.Research square · 2026Article
- The Anesthesia Preparedeness Clinic (APC) triage score tool: an integrated electronic health record tool for improving resource allocation for preoperative care clinics.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- Adding Artificial Intelligence to the Surgeon's Domain.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Multitask Artificial Intelligence-Based Electrocardiogram Tool for Preoperative Cardiac Testing in Noncardiac Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study of Health Care Utilization and Costs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Transforming perioperative care: The current landscape and future trajectory of artificial intelligence in anesthesia-A narrative review.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Rethinking the Integration of Artificial Intelligence Into Surgery: Centralized Risk Assessment for System-Level Impact.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Enhancing multimodal inpatient fall prediction via nursing statement integration within the OMOP common data model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Holistic Nursing Surveillance Decision Support System for Postoperative Pulmonary Complications After Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early prediction of bowel necrosis in incarcerated groin hernia using parsimonious machine learning models: a retrospective cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Risk prediction in spine surgery: a scoping review of traditional models, artificial intelligence, and the challenge of clinical translation.Spine deformity · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced ECG score for perioperative risk assessment in non-cardiac surgery.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning model for predicting traumatic brain injury-induced coagulopathy in elderly patients: A multicenter cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Evaluating the methodological suitability of partial dependence plots and Shapley additive explanations for population-level interpretation of machine learning models in total joint arthroplasty.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Development and internal validation of an interpretable machine learning model to predict coagulopathy following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective multicenter study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- A Causal and interpretable machine learning framework for postcranioplasty risk prediction and surgical decision support.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Identifying patients at high risk of adverse outcomes prior to surgery may allow for interventions associated with improved postoperative outcomes; however, few tools exist for automated prediction. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of an automated machine-learning model in the identification of patients at high risk of adverse outcomes from surgery using only data in the electronic health record. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study was conducted among 1 477 561 patients undergoing surgery at 20 community and tertiary care hospitals in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) health network. The study included 3 phases: (1) building and validating a model on a retrospective population, (2) testing model accuracy on a retrospective population, and (3) validating the model prospectively in clinical care. A gradient-boosted decision tree machine learning method was used for developing a preoperative surgical risk prediction tool. The Shapley additive explanations method was used for model interpretability and further validation. Accuracy was compared between the UPMC model and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) surgical risk calculator for predicting mortality. Data were analyzed from September through December 2021. Exposure: Undergoing any type of surgical procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Postoperative mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 30 days were evaluated. Results: Among 1 477 561 patients included in model development (806 148 females [54.5%; mean [SD] age, 56.8 [17.9] years), 1 016 966 patient encounters were used for training and 254 242 separate encounters were used for testing the model. After deployment in clinical use, another 206 353 patients were prospectively evaluated; an additional 902 patients were selected for comparing the accuracy of the UPMC model and NSQIP tool for predicting mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for mortality was 0.972 (95% CI, 0.971-0.973) for the training set and 0.946 (95% CI, 0.943-0.948) for the test set. The AUROC for MACCE and mortality was 0.923 (95% CI, 0.922-0.924) on the training and 0.899 (95% CI, 0.896-0.902) on the test set. In prospective evaluation, the AUROC for mortality was 0.956 (95% CI, 0.953-0.959), sensitivity was 2148 of 2517 patients (85.3%), specificity was 186 286 of 203 836 patients (91.4%), and negative predictive value was 186 286 of 186 655 patients (99.8%). The model outperformed the NSQIP tool as measured by AUROC (0.945 [95% CI, 0.914-0.977] vs 0.897 [95% CI, 0.854-0.941], for a difference of 0.048), specificity (0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89] vs 0.68 [95% CI, 0.65-0.69]), and accuracy (0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.87] vs 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66, 0.72]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that an automated machine learning model was accurate in identifying patients undergoing surgery who were at high risk of adverse outcomes using only preoperative variables within the electronic health record, with superior performance compared with the NSQIP calculator. These findings suggest that using this model to identify patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes prior to surgery may allow for individualized perioperative care, which may be associated with improved outcomes.
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.