ReviewResearch in heart yield and translational medicine2025
The Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting the Postoperative Mortality Rate in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Research in heart yield and translational medicine, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Highlights: Artificial intelligence (AI) models, especially Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), achieved the highest predictive performance for postoperative mortality in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients, with pooled AUC values of 0.93 and 0.91, respectively.The meta-analysis demonstrated that AI-assisted prediction tools provide high specificity (0.96) and robust accuracy compared to conventional risk stratification systems.Integrating AI into clinical workflows can enhance perioperative decision-making and improve patient outcomes in CHD, though further multicenter validation is needed for broader implementation. Background: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children requiring surgical intervention. Accurate prediction of postoperative mortality remains challenging because of the limitations of traditional risk stratification systems. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for enhancing predictive accuracy in this field. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AI in predicting postoperative mortality in patients with CHD. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched four databases for relevant studies published up to July 16, 2024. Studies with retrospective, prospective, or cross-sectional designs that evaluated AI-based models for predicting mortality after CHD surgery were eligible for inclusion. Data were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated. Results: Six studies involving 42,536 patients and evaluating 11 distinct AI models were included. The meta-analysis yielded a pooled AUC of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.93), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.65) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98). Subgroup analysis revealed that the Extreme Gradient Boosting (AUC, 0.93) and Gradient Boosting Machine (AUC, 0.91) models had the highest predictive performance. All included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias. Conclusion: The Extreme Gradient Boosting and Gradient Boosting Machine models demonstrate high specificity and promising accuracy for predicting postoperative mortality in patients with CHD, outperforming traditional scoring systems. Further multicenter, prospective studies are needed to enhance generalizability and support clinical implementation.
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.