Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40577014›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Multicenter Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Surgical Transfusion Risk at 45 US Hospitals.

Sunny S Lou, Sayantan Kumar, Charles W Goss, Michael S Avidan, Sachin Kheterpal, Thomas Kannampallil, Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07223853 (Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT07223853 narecruitingnot on this map

Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2025 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsSurgeryArmsS-PATH clinical decision support system, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Sunny S LouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Sayantan KumarInstitute for Informatics, Data Science, and Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Charles W GossInstitute for Informatics, Data Science, and Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Michael S AvidanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Sachin KheterpalDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Thomas KannampallilDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group

Funding

Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Perioperative Blood ManagementK23HL166880 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Sunny S. Lou · 2024 to 2026
$521k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL166880
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Accurate estimation of surgical transfusion risk is important for perioperative planning and effective resource allocation. Most machine learning models in health care are not validated or perform poorly in external settings. Objective: To externally validate a publicly available machine learning algorithm (Surgical Personalized Anticipation of Transfusion Hazard [S-PATH]) to estimate red cell transfusion during surgery within a national sample of hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated all surgical cases performed in 2020 or 2021 at 45 US hospitals participating in the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group. Obstetric and nonoperative cases were excluded. Data analysis was performed from February 2023 to March 2025. Exposures: At each hospital, S-PATH was used to estimate surgical transfusion risk using patient- and procedure-specific characteristics without local retraining. A baseline model representing the standard-of-care maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) approach, which omits patient factors, was used for comparison. Risk thresholds above which a type and screen would be recommended were set for 96% sensitivity. Performance was evaluated at each hospital separately. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of patients with type and screen order recommendations between S-PATH and MSBOS at each hospital. The secondary outcome was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: In this cohort study of 3 275 956 surgical cases (median [IQR] age, 57 [40-69] years; 53.1% female) performed at 45 hospitals (28 of 45 academic [62.2%]), S-PATH recommended type and screen orders for a median (IQR) of 32.5% (25.8%-42.0%) of cases, whereas the MSBOS approach recommended type and screens for a median (IQR) of 51.6% (46.9%-61.1%) of cases for the same sensitivity (median [IQR] difference, 17.9 [14.8-24.9] absolute percentage points). The median (IQR) S-PATH AUROC was 0.929 (0.915-0.946), whereas the median (IQR) MSBOS AUROC was 0.857 (0.822-0.884). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of 45 hospitals, a personalized surgical transfusion risk prediction algorithm demonstrated external validity and discrimination. S-PATH was consistently more effective than standard care, suggesting its potential for use as a perioperative clinical decision support tool.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionErythrocyte TransfusionMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40577014
PMCPMC12205404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.