ArticleHeliyon2024
Predictors of in-ICU length of stay among congenital heart defect patients using artificial intelligence model: A pilot study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of machine learning for diagnosis and prognostic prediction of congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in congenital heart surgery: a scoping review and primer for surgeons.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Representation learning for the prediction of length of stay in infants with congenital heart diseases undergoing cardiac surgery.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Drug-Coated Cardiovascular Devices: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The molecular mechanisms of cardiac development and related diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Article
- PSO-XnB: a proposed model for predicting hospital stay of CAD patients.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to develop a predictive model using artificial intelligence to estimate the ICU length of stay (LOS) for Congenital Heart Defects (CHD) patients after surgery, improving care planning and resource management. Design: We analyze clinical data from 2240 CHD surgery patients to create and validate the predictive model. Twenty AI models are developed and evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Setting: The study is conducted in a Brazilian hospital's Cardiovascular Surgery Department, focusing on transplants and cardiopulmonary surgeries. Participants: Retrospective analysis is conducted on data from 2240 consecutive CHD patients undergoing surgery. Interventions: Ninety-three pre and intraoperative variables are used as ICU LOS predictors. Measurements and main results: Utilizing regression and clustering methodologies for ICU LOS (ICU Length of Stay) estimation, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine, using regression, achieved a Mean Squared Error (MSE) of 15.4, 11.8, and 15.2 days for training, testing, and unseen data. Key predictors included metrics such as "Mechanical Ventilation Duration", "Weight on Surgery Date", and "Vasoactive-Inotropic Score". Meanwhile, the clustering model, Cat Boost Classifier, attained an accuracy of 0.6917 and AUC of 0.8559 with similar key predictors. Conclusions: Patients with higher ventilation times, vasoactive-inotropic scores, anoxia time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and lower weight, height, BMI, age, hematocrit, and presurgical oxygen saturation have longer ICU stays, aligning with existing literature.
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.