Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37418262›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning Model to Identify Patients Before Surgery at High Risk for Postoperative Adverse Events.

Aman Mahajan, Stephen Esper, Thien Htay Oo, Jeffery McKibben, Michael Garver, Jamie Artman, Cynthia Klahre, John Ryan, Senthilkumar Sadhasivam, Jennifer Holder-Murray and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Frailty Screening Using the Risk Analysis Index: A User Guide.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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 · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Aman MahajanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Stephen EsperDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Thien Htay OoDepartment of Clinical Analytics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeffery McKibbenDepartment of Clinical Analytics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Michael GarverDepartment of Clinical Analytics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jamie ArtmanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Cynthia KlahreDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
John RyanDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Senthilkumar SadhasivamDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer Holder-MurrayDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Oscar C MarroquinDepartment of Clinical Analytics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningPostoperative ComplicationsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID37418262
PMCPMC10329211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.