Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39374541›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2024

A machine learning algorithm-based risk prediction score for in-hospital/30-day mortality after adult cardiac surgery.

Shubhra Sinha, Tim Dong, Arnaldo Dimagli, Andrew Judge, Gianni D Angelini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as an Alternative to the EuroSCORE II in Estimating Cardiac Surgery Risk.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Shubhra SinhaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8554-6704
Tim DongDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1953-0063
Arnaldo DimagliDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0055-8656
Andrew JudgeDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3015-0432
Gianni D AngeliniDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Bristol Heart Institute, Translational Health Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1753-3730

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research Bristol Biomedical Research CentreUniversity Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol NIHR203315
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA study of the performance of in-hospital/30-day mortality risk prediction models using an alternative machine learning algorithm (XGBoost) in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

methodsRetrospective analyses of prospectively routinely collected data on adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in the UK from January 2012 to March 2019. Data were temporally split 70:30 into training and validation subsets. Independent mortality prediction models were created using sequential backward floating selection starting with 61 variables. Assessments of discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the resultant XGBoost model with 23 variables were then conducted.

resultsA total of 224,318 adults underwent cardiac surgery during the study period with a 2.76% (N = 6,100) mortality. In the testing cohort, there was good discrimination (area under the receiver operator curve 0.846, F1 0.277) and calibration (especially in high-risk patients). Decision curve analysis showed XGBoost-23 had a net benefit till a threshold probability of 60%. The most important variables were the type of operation, age, creatinine clearance, urgency of the procedure and the New York Heart Association score.

conclusionsFeature-selected XGBoost showed good discrimination, calibration and clinical benefit when predicting mortality post-cardiac surgery. Prospective external validation of a XGBoost-derived model performance is warranted.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresHospital MortalityMachine LearningAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveBenchmarkingCardiac surgeryMachine learningMortality predictionRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID39374541
PMCPMC11522872

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.