Predictability of Mortality in Patients With Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery Based on Perioperative Factors via Machine Learning: Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is associated with increased postoperative mortality, but the relevant perioperative factors that contribute to the mortality of patients with MINS have not been fully evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To establish a comprehensive body of knowledge relating to patients with MINS, we researched the best performing predictive model based on machine learning algorithms. METHODS: Using clinical data from 7629 patients with MINS from the clinical data warehouse, we evaluated 8 machine learning algorithms for accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and area under the precision-recall curve to investigate the best model for predicting mortality. Feature importance and Shapley Additive Explanations values were analyzed to explain the role of each clinical factor in patients with MINS. RESULTS: Extreme gradient boosting outperformed the other models. The model showed an AUROC of 0.923 (95% CI 0.916-0.930). The AUROC of the model did not decrease in the test data set (0.894, 95% CI 0.86-0.922; P=.06). Antiplatelet drugs prescription, elevated C-reactive protein level, and beta blocker prescription were associated with reduced 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting the mortality of patients with MINS was shown to be feasible using machine learning. By analyzing the impact of predictors, markers that should be cautiously monitored by clinicians may be identified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".