Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37749205›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Machine learning prediction of major adverse cardiac events after elective bariatric surgery.

Gustavo Romero-Velez, Jerry Dang, Juan S Barajas-Gamboa, Terrence Lee-St John, Andrew T Strong, Salvador Navarrete, Ricard Corcelles, John Rodriguez, Maan Fares, Matthew Kroh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Gustavo Romero-VelezEndocrine and Metabolism Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9762-3698
Jerry DangDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Juan S Barajas-GamboaDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Terrence Lee-St JohnDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Andrew T StrongDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Salvador NavarreteDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Ricard CorcellesDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
John RodriguezDigestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Maan FaresHeart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Matthew KrohDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. krohm@ccf.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bariatric SurgeryMyocardial InfarctionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMachine LearningMalePrognosisBariatric surgeryMACEMachine learningOutcomesSafety

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.