Development and Validation of an Explainable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery in Two Centers in China: Retrospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is an easily overlooked complication but closely related to postoperative cardiovascular adverse outcomes; therefore, the early diagnosis and prediction are particularly important. Objective: We aimed to develop and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model for predicting MINS among older patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Methods: The retrospective cohort study included older patients who had noncardiac surgery from 1 northern center and 1 southern center in China. The data sets from center 1 were divided into a training set and an internal validation set. The data set from center 2 was used as an external validation set. Before modeling, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and recursive feature elimination methods were used to reduce dimensions of data and select key features from all variables. Prediction models were developed based on the extracted features using several ML algorithms, including category boosting, random forest, logistic regression, naïve Bayes, light gradient boosting machine, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machine, and decision tree. Prediction performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve as the main evaluation metric to select the best algorithms. The model performance was verified by internal and external validation data sets with the best algorithm and compared to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index. The Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) method was applied to calculate values for each feature, representing the contribution to the predicted risk of complication, and generate personalized explanations. Results: A total of 19,463 eligible patients were included; among those, 12,464 patients in center 1 were included as the training set; 4754 patients in center 1 were included as the internal validation set; and 2245 in center 2 were included as the external validation set. The best-performing model for prediction was the CatBoost algorithm, achieving the highest AUROC of 0.805 (95% CI 0.778-0.831) in the training set, validating with an AUROC of 0.780 in the internal validation set and 0.70 in external validation set. Additionally, CatBoost demonstrated superior performance compared to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (AUROC 0.636; P<.001). The SHAP values indicated the ranking of the level of importance of each variable, with preoperative serum creatinine concentration, red blood cell distribution width, and age accounting for the top three. The results from the SHAP method can predict events with positive values or nonevents with negative values, providing an explicit explanation of individualized risk predictions. Conclusions: The ML models can provide a personalized and fairly accurate risk prediction of MINS, and the explainable perspective can help identify potentially modifiable sources of risk at the patient level.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».