Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38889069›Full record

ArticleJMIRx med2024

Performance Drift in Machine Learning Models for Cardiac Surgery Risk Prediction: Retrospective Analysis.

Tim Dong, Shubhra Sinha, Ben Zhai, Daniel Fudulu, Jeremy Chan, Pradeep Narayan, Andy Judge, Massimo Caputo, Arnaldo Dimagli, Umberto Benedetto and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIRx med, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A machine learning algorithm-based risk prediction score for in-hospital/30-day mortality after adult cardiac surgery.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Tim DongBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1953-0063
Shubhra SinhaBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8554-6704
Ben ZhaiSchool of Computing Science, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1635-1406
Daniel FuduluBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6759-7719
Jeremy ChanBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3009-5712
Pradeep NarayanDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, West Bengal, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3843-1338
Andy JudgeBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3015-0432
Massimo CaputoBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7508-0891
Arnaldo DimagliBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0055-8656
Umberto BenedettoBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7074-7949
Gianni D AngeliniBristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1753-3730

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/17/1/32804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II risk scores are the most commonly used risk prediction models for in-hospital mortality after adult cardiac surgery. However, they are prone to miscalibration over time and poor generalization across data sets; thus, their use remains controversial. Despite increased interest, a gap in understanding the effect of data set drift on the performance of machine learning (ML) over time remains a barrier to its wider use in clinical practice. Data set drift occurs when an ML system underperforms because of a mismatch between the data it was developed from and the data on which it is deployed. Objective: In this study, we analyzed the extent of performance drift using models built on a large UK cardiac surgery database. The objectives were to (1) rank and assess the extent of performance drift in cardiac surgery risk ML models over time and (2) investigate any potential influence of data set drift and variable importance drift on performance drift. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively, routinely gathered data on adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2019. We temporally split the data 70:30 into a training and validation set and a holdout set. Five novel ML mortality prediction models were developed and assessed, along with EuroSCORE II, for relationships between and within variable importance drift, performance drift, and actual data set drift. Performance was assessed using a consensus metric. Results: A total of 227,087 adults underwent cardiac surgery during the study period, with a mortality rate of 2.76% (n=6258). There was strong evidence of a decrease in overall performance across all models (P<.0001). Extreme gradient boosting (clinical effectiveness metric [CEM] 0.728, 95% CI 0.728-0.729) and random forest (CEM 0.727, 95% CI 0.727-0.728) were the overall best-performing models, both temporally and nontemporally. EuroSCORE II performed the worst across all comparisons. Sharp changes in variable importance and data set drift from October to December 2017, from June to July 2018, and from December 2018 to February 2019 mirrored the effects of performance decrease across models. Conclusions: All models show a decrease in at least 3 of the 5 individual metrics. CEM and variable importance drift detection demonstrate the limitation of logistic regression methods used for cardiac surgery risk prediction and the effects of data set drift. Future work will be required to determine the interplay between ML models and whether ensemble models could improve on their respective performance advantages.

Indexed as

adultartificial intelligencecardiaccardiac surgerycardiologydatadata set driftheartmachine learningmodelmortalitynational data setoperative mortalityperformanceperformance driftpredictionriskrisk predictionsurgeryUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID38889069
PMCPMC11217160

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.