Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37834887›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Predicting Survival for Veno-Arterial ECMO Using Conditional Inference Trees-A Multicenter Study.

Julia Braun, Sebastian D Sahli, Donat R Spahn, Daniel Röder, Holger Neb, Gösta Lotz, Raed Aser, Markus J Wilhelm, Alexander Kaserer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Julia BraunDepartments of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8359-6177
Sebastian D SahliInstitute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2030-0313
Donat R SpahnInstitute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4782-183X
Daniel RöderDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6805-9330
Holger NebDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany.
Gösta LotzDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, 60596 Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2291-5159
Raed AserClinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0000-4601-8044
Markus J WilhelmClinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8272-8414
Alexander KasererInstitute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9105-8328

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing use and understanding of the process, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy is still associated with considerable mortality. Personalized and quick survival predictions using machine learning methods can assist in clinical decision making before ECMO insertion.

methodsThis is a multicenter study to develop and validate an easy-to-use prognostic model to predict in-hospital mortality of VA-ECMO therapy, using unbiased recursive partitioning with conditional inference trees. We compared two sets with different numbers of variables (small and comprehensive), all of which were available just before ECMO initiation. The area under the curve (AUC), the cross-validated Brier score, and the error rate were applied to assess model performance. Data were collected retrospectively between 2007 and 2019.

results837 patients were eligible for this study; 679 patients in the derivation cohort (median (IQR) age 60 (49 to 69) years; 187 (28%) female patients) and a total of 158 patients in two external validation cohorts (median (IQR) age 57 (49 to 65) and 70 (63 to 76) years). For the small data set, the model showed a cross-validated error rate of 35.79% and an AUC of 0.70 (95% confidence interval from 0.66 to 0.74). In the comprehensive data set, the error rate was the same with a value of 35.35%, with an AUC of 0.71 (95% confidence interval from 0.67 to 0.75). The mean Brier scores of the two models were 0.210 (small data set) and 0.211 (comprehensive data set). External validation showed an error rate of 43% and AUC of 0.60 (95% confidence interval from 0.52 to 0.69) using the small tree and an error rate of 35% with an AUC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval from 0.54 to 0.72) using the comprehensive tree. There were large differences between the two validation sets.

conclusionsConditional inference trees are able to augment prognostic clinical decision making for patients undergoing ECMO treatment. They may provide a degree of accuracy in mortality prediction and prognostic stratification using readily available variables.

Indexed as

conditional inference treesECLSmachine learningpredictorsunbiased recursive partitioningVA ECMO

Identifiers

PMID37834887
PMCPMC10573956

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.