ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Interpretable machine learning to predict postoperative adverse outcomes in cardiac surgery.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac surgery is associated with significant mortality and complication risks. This study aims to develop an interpretable machine learning (ML) model to predict adverse outcomes (AOs) after cardiac surgery, and to explore the associations between relevant characteristics and predicted outcomes.
methodsPatients who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) cardiac surgery between January 2013 and December 2022 at a tertiary hospital were included. Perioperative data were collected, and a predictive model was constructed using the light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) algorithm. To assess whether incorporating intraoperative and early postoperative data could improve risk prediction at the time of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, we compared the performance of this model with that of the preoperative European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). The EuroSCORE was used as a baseline preoperative risk assessment tool, while the LightGBM model aimed to provide an updated risk estimate upon ICU admission. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) on a validation dataset. Additionally, counterfactual explanations (CE), an explainable artificial intelligence technique, were employed to enhance the model's applicability and credibility in real-world clinical settings.
resultsA total of 3,270 patients who underwent cardiac surgery under CPB were included in this study, of which 203 experienced AOs postoperatively. The LightGBM model built on perioperative data demonstrated good predictive performance (AUROC = 0.807), outperforming the traditional EuroSCORE assessment system (AUROC = 0.722). The application of the CE method to the ML model indicated that characteristics such as initial B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels upon intensive care unit (ICU) admission, aortic cross-clamp time, CPB duration, initial urea levels upon ICU admission, and operation duration were key predictors of postoperative AOs.
conclusionThe ML model shows potential in improving risk assessment for AOs after cardiac surgery in patients. The application of CE provides the model with more detailed and practical interpretability, enhancing the credibility of its predictions and promoting transparency and personalization in the clinical decision-making process.
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.