ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following Carotid Endarterectomy Using Machine Learning.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcomes for Arrest in Surgical Settings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Prediction of cardiovascular events after carotid endarterectomy using pathological images and clinical data.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Predicting Major Preoperative Risk Factors for Retears After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using Machine Learning Algorithms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Validity of E-PASS Score for Evaluating Perioperative Minor Complications Associated with Carotid Endarterectomy.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Investigating the Key Trends in Applying Artificial Intelligence to Health Technologies: A Scoping Review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Does machine learning improve prediction accuracy of the Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy Success Score? A contemporary Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network cohort study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Article
- One year outcomes following of carotid endarterectomy in different age groups: Russian multicenter study.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- TCD-Guided management in carotid endarterectomy: a retrospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Predicting Major Adverse Carotid Cerebrovascular Events in Patients with Carotid Stenosis: Integrating a Panel of Plasma Protein Biomarkers and Clinical Features-A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting Outcomes Following Lower Extremity Endovascular Revascularization Using Machine Learning.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Will obesity break your heart - cardiac biomarkers in the Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024Article
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 at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a major vascular operation for stroke prevention that carries significant perioperative risks; however, outcome prediction tools remain limited. The authors developed machine learning algorithms to predict outcomes following CEA. Methods and Results The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted vascular database was used to identify patients who underwent CEA between 2011 and 2021. Input features included 36 preoperative demographic/clinical variables. The primary outcome was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death). The data were split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets. Using 10-fold cross-validation, 6 machine learning models were trained using preoperative features. The primary metric for evaluating model performance was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Model robustness was evaluated with calibration plot and Brier score. Overall, 38 853 patients underwent CEA during the study period. Thirty-day major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 1683 (4.3%) patients. The best performing prediction model was XGBoost, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92). In comparison, logistic regression had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.60-0.64), and existing tools in the literature demonstrate area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values ranging from 0.58 to 0.74. The calibration plot showed good agreement between predicted and observed event probabilities with a Brier score of 0.02. The strongest predictive feature in our algorithm was carotid symptom status. Conclusions The machine learning models accurately predicted 30-day outcomes following CEA using preoperative data and performed better than existing tools. They have potential for important utility in guiding risk-mitigation strategies to improve outcomes for patients being considered for CEA.
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.