ArticleiScience2026
Unified comparison of machine learning paradigms for blood transfusion prediction in pediatric congenital heart surgery.
Article in iScience, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood transfusion prediction studies in pediatric cardiac surgery have employed direct regression, two-stage, and multi-class classification paradigms, but the fundamentally different outputs of these paradigms have prevented direct head-to-head comparison. We developed a dual-mean absolute error (MAE) composite metric that converts all predictions to continuous transfusion volume estimates, enabling unified comparison across paradigms. Using data from 3,342 pediatric patients undergoing congenital heart surgery, we evaluated six imputation methods, three class-balancing strategies, and fifteen machine learning algorithms. Iterative regression imputation achieved the highest performance (AUC = 0.864), and synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) combined with undersampling improved F1 by 37% (RBC) and 19.5% (plasma). The two-stage approach yielded the best composite scores for RBC (0.791; Neural Network + Extra Trees) and plasma (0.755; AdaBoost + KNN), whereas multi-class LightGBM was optimal for platelets (0.652; AUC = 0.960). SHAP analysis identified cardiopulmonary bypass as the dominant predictor for RBC/plasma and Aristotle score for platelets. The framework supports evidence-based, blood-product-specific model selection.
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.