ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2023
A scoring model based on clinical factors to predict postoperative moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in Stanford type A aortic dissection.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of Thromboelastography as a Predictor of Postoperative Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning approaches for risk prediction in aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a predictive model for postoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with type A aortic dissection based on the 2023 updated definition.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Case Report: The role of nitric oxide inhalation and prone positioning ventilation in oxygen improvement in patients with refractory hypoxemia following acute type A aortic dissection surgery: two cases report and literature review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors and clinical outcomes of severe postoperative hypoxaemia following surgical repair of Stanford type A aortic dissection: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after type A aortic dissection is common and has high mortality. However, it is not clear which patients are at high risk of ARDS and an early prediction model is deficient.
methodsFrom May 2015 to December 2017, 594 acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients who underwent aortic surgery in Anzhen Hospital were enrolled in our study. We compared the early survival of MS-ARDS within 24 h by Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. The data were divided into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 7:3. We established two prediction models and tested their efficiency.
resultsThe oxygenation index decreased significantly immediately and 24 h after TAAD surgery. A total of 363 patients (61.1%) suffered from moderate and severe hypoxemia within 4 h, and 243 patients (40.9%) suffered from MS-ARDS within 24 h after surgery. Patients with MS-ARDS had higher 30-day mortality than others (log-rank test: p-value <0.001). There were 30 variables associated with MS-ARDS after surgery. The XGboost model consisted of 30 variables. The logistic regression model (LRM) consisted of 11 variables. The mean accuracy of the XGBoost model was 70.7%, and that of the LRM was 80.0%. The AUCs of XGBoost and LRM were 0.764 and 0.797, respectively.
conclusionPostoperative MS-ARDS significantly increased early mortality after TAAD surgery. The LRM model has higher accuracy, and the XGBoost model has higher specificity.
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.