ArticleJMIRx med2024
Performance Drift in Machine Learning Models for Cardiac Surgery Risk Prediction: Retrospective Analysis.
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.
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.
- Machine learning prediction models for intravenous immunoglobulin resistance in Kawasaki disease: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
- Keeping Medical AI Healthy and Trustworthy: A Review of Detection and Correction Methods for System Degradation.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Review
- Risk Stratification for Postoperative Mortality in Cardiac Surgery: "Quo Vadis"?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in predicting the results of open-heart surgery: a scoping review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Electrophysiology: A Clinically Oriented Review with Engineering Primers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Personalized Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Value and Limitations of Predictive Models.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Predicting Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events After Cardiac Surgery Using Combined Clinical, Laboratory, and Echocardiographic Parameters: A Machine Learning Approach.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based hybrid risk estimation system (ERES) in cardiac surgery: Supplementary insights from the ASA score analysis.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Use of pulse pressure index for cardiovascular outcomes assessment and development of a coronary heart disease model for the elderly.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: A Systematic Review of Use and Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Enhancing Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: Development of an Advanced Xgboost Model with Hospital-Level Random Effects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 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 · 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.
Funding
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
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.