Fuzzy Logic-Based Model to Stratify Cardiac Surgery Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical practice is usually performed in a context of uncertainty, where expert knowledge is used for efficiencyin the decision-making process.Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a fuzzy logic-based model to predict cardiac surgery mortality risk.Methods: Four hundred and fifty patients undergoing cardiac surgery were prospectively included in the study and mortalityrisk was predicted based on five scores: 1) “clinical expert” opinion, 2) fuzzy logic-based system according to expert knowledge,3) Parsonnet, 4) Ontario and 5) EuroSCORE. The fuzzy logic model was developed in the following stages: expert selectionof different mortality predictive variables, tables of influence among variables, construction of a fuzzy cognitive map (FCM)and its implementation in an artificial neuronal network, expert-determined patient risk score, test set risk calculation basedon fuzzy predictors, validation set risk using calibrated FCM, and comparison with the other scores according to the level ofagreement and precision with ROC curves.Results: The calibrated model was used to predict the outcome of the validation set (360 patients), based on the FCM scoreand risk predicted by Parsonnet, Ontario and EuroSCORE. The ROC areas showed that FCM had at least the same performanceas other scores to predict mortality (ROC=0.793 vs. 0.775, 0.767, 0.741 and 0.701 for EuroSCORE, “expert”, Ontarioand Parsonnet, respectively).Conclusions: A fuzzy logic-based system employing expert knowledge and the implementation of an expert system is postulatedto predict cardiac surgery mortality risk. The model not only mimicked the outcomes obtained by the “expert”, but had thesame performance as others risk scores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".