ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning for the prediction of blood transfusion risk during or after mitral valve surgery: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unified comparison of machine learning paradigms for blood transfusion prediction in pediatric congenital heart surgery.iScience · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Innovations in Transfusion Medicine: A Narrative Synthesis of Current Reviews.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the optimal prediction method and key preoperative variables for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion risk in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery. We conducted a retrospective study involving 1477 patients from eight large tertiary hospitals in China who underwent mitral valve surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. From thirty collected preoperative variables, the Max-Relevance and Min-Redundancy (mRMR) method was used for feature selection, and various machine learning models were evaluated. Of the 1477 patients, 862 received RBC transfusions. The mRMR method identified ten significant preoperative variables. The LightGBM model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.935 in the training set and 0.734 in the validation set, with 74.2% accuracy in a prospective dataset. SHAP analysis revealed the ten most influential variables were hematocrit, RBC count, weight, body mass index, fibrinogen, hemoglobin, height, age, left ventricular dilation, and sex. In conclusion, LightGBM was identified as the optimal model for predicting RBC transfusion needs. The model's high accuracy can assist clinicians in anticipating transfusions and improving blood management decisions.
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.