ArticleHeliyon2024
The clinical applications of ensemble machine learning based on the Bagging strategy for in-hospital mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prognostic model for human immunodeficiency virus-associated cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Short-Term Mortality After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based hybrid risk estimation system (ERES) in cardiac surgery: Supplementary insights from the ASA score analysis.PLOS digital health · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning (ML) has excelled after being introduced into the medical field. Ensemble ML models were able to integrate the advantages of several different ML models. This study compares the ensemble ML model's and EuroSCORE II's performance predicting in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Methods: The study included 4,764 patients from three heart centers between January 2007 and December 2021. Of these, 3812 patients were assigned to the modeling group, and 952 patients were assigned to the internal test group. Patients from other two heart center (1733 and 415 cases, respectively) constituted the external test group. The modeling set data are trained using each of the three ML strategies (XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM), and the new model (XCL model) is constructed by integrating these three models through an ensemble ML strategy. Performance of different models in the three test groups comparative assessments were performed by calibration, discriminant, decision curve analysis, net reclassification index (NRI), integrated discriminant improvement (IDI), and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: In terms of discrimination, the XCL model performed the best with an impressive AUC value of 0.9145 in the internal validation group. The XCL model continued to perform best in both external test groups. The NRI and IDI suggested that the ML model showed positive improvements in all three test groups compared to EuroSCORE II. Conclusions: ML models, particularly the XCL model, outperformed EuroSCORE II in predicting in-hospital mortality for CABG patients, with better discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.
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.