ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Machine learning prediction of major adverse cardiac events after elective bariatric surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolution of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Current Applications and Clinical Implications.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in bariatric surgery: a comprehensive systematic review.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Perioperative Risk Prediction and Prevention in Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review and Proposed Conceptual Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prediction of venous thromboembolism after metabolic and bariatric surgery using machine learning approach: a MBSAQIP study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Predicting pregnancy at the first year following metabolic-bariatric surgery: development and validation of machine learning models.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Editorial comment: Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic revisional bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis on perioperative outcomes.Obesity surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) is an emerging technology with the potential to predict and improve clinical outcomes including adverse events, based on complex pattern recognition. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after bariatric surgery have an incidence of 0.1% but carry significant morbidity and mortality. Prior studies have investigated these events using traditional statistical methods, however, studies reporting ML for MACE prediction in bariatric surgery remain limited. As such, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare MACE prediction models in bariatric surgery using traditional statistical methods and ML.
methodsCross-sectional study of the MBSAQIP database, from 2015 to 2019. A binary-outcome MACE prediction model was generated using three different modeling methods: (1) main-effects-only logistic regression, (2) neural network with a single hidden layer, and (3) XGBoost model with a max depth of 3. The same set of predictor variables and random split of the total data (50/50) were used to train and validate each model. Overall performance was compared based on the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
resultsA total of 755,506 patients were included, of which 0.1% experienced MACE. Of the total sample, 79.6% were female, 47.8% had hypertension, 26.2% had diabetes, 23.7% had hyperlipidemia, 8.4% used tobacco within 1 year, 1.9% had previous percutaneous cardiac intervention, 1.2% had a history of myocardial infarction, 1.1% had previous cardiac surgery, and 0.6% had renal insufficiency. The AUC for the three different MACE prediction models was: 0.790 for logistic regression, 0.798 for neural network and 0.787 for XGBoost. While the AUC implies similar discriminant function, the risk prediction histogram for the neural network shifted in a smoother fashion.
conclusionThe ML models developed achieved good discriminant function in predicting MACE. ML can help clinicians with patient selection and identify individuals who may be at elevated risk for MACE after bariatric surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37749205What 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.