The comparison of the efficacy of three different risk-scoring systems on predicting the mortality rates of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The importance of preoperative risk scoring in open-heart surgery has risen in the last decades. Many scoring systems for mortality prediction before coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) have been described in all over the world. We aimed to compare the efficacy of three different well-known and commonly used mortality risk-scoring systems and to provide a more suitable scoring system for our patient population.Material-Method: A total of 2120 patients who had undergone a CABG operation in Türkiye Yüksek İhtisas Hospital Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic between January 2003 – December 2004 included in this study. The patients who had concomitant surgery with CABG operation were excluded. The in-hospital deaths and the deaths in postoperative 30 days were accepted as mortality. The patients were divided into low, moderate and high-risk groups as the risk scoring systems prerequisites. The predicted mortality rates by the risk scoring systems and the observed mortality rates were compared. Results: The observed mortality rates and the predicted mortality rates by the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) were similar between the groups (p>0.05). The observed mortality rates of low and moderate risk groups were significantly lower than the predicted mortality rates with Parsonnet risk scoring system (p<0.001). In the high-risk group, the observed mortality rates were not significantly different from the predicted mortality rates with the same risk scoring system (p>0.05). The predicted mortality rates with Ontario Province Risk (OPR) scoring system and observed mortality rates in the low risk group were significantly different (p<0.001). But in the moderate and high risk groups, the observed mortality rates and predicted mortality rates with the OPR were not significantly different (p>0.05). In the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) = 0.801 for EuroSCORE, AUC = 0.737 for Parsonnet and AUC = 0.677 for OPR risk scoring systems. According to these values, the accuracy of EuroSCORE was accepted as high, Parsonnet was accepted as moderate and OPR was accepted as non-significant. Conclusion: The EuroSCORE risk scoring system results were similar to the results in the literature. It is a reliable way of risk prediction for the patients undergoing CABG surgery in our region.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».