ArticleOpen heart2026
Machine learning-based cardiovascular risk calculator for non-cardiac surgery.
Article in Open heart, 2026. 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.
- Peri-operative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy and high-risk patients: what's going on? A narrative review.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Navigating the intelligence revolution: transforming cardiovascular care through AI-driven innovation.Open heart · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnnually, 4% of the global population undergoes non-cardiac surgery, with 30% of those patients having at least one cardiovascular risk factor. It is estimated that the 30-day mortality is between 0.5% and 2%.The main objective of this study is to develop a traditional machine learning (ML) model that provides a cardiovascular risk score for patients older than 50 years undergoing non-cardiac surgery, calculating the risk from the date of surgery until 30 days post surgery, with specific emphasis on interpretability and explainability of the model's decision-making process.
methodsThe NSQIP 2022 dataset was used to build the model. It consisted of a total of 4 97 011 patients after data cleaning. The primary clinical endpoint was death, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest or stroke at 30 days postoperatively, which occurred in 1.44% of the patients. Different preprocessing techniques were performed for data cleaning and feature selection. The cleaned data were then used to model the selected learning algorithms, including Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Random Forest and boosting Decision Tree algorithms (CatBoost, AdaBoost, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting). These models were evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and their corresponding 95% CI.
resultsFor classification, the trained models were evaluated using AUROC on the test set. LightGBM achieved the highest AUROC of 0.9009 with a 95% CI of 0.8889 to 0.9126. The model consisted of six data elements: type of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiology classification, Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), sepsis, emergent surgery and mechanical ventilation.
conclusionIn our study, LightGBM classifier proved to be the best model for cardiovascular risk scoring, demonstrating a strong balance between prediction accuracy and generalisation.
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.