Preoperative risk assessment tools for morbidity after cardiac surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative morbidity places considerable burden on health and resources. Thus, strategies to identify, predict, and reduce postoperative morbidity are needed. AIMS: To identify and explore existing preoperative risk assessment tools for morbidity after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase) were searched to December 2020 for preoperative risk assessment models for morbidity after adult cardiac surgery. Models exploring one isolated postoperative morbidity and those in patients having heart transplantation or congenital surgery were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by two authors. RESULTS: From 2251 identified papers, 22 models were found. The majority (54.5%) were developed in the USA or Canada, defined morbidity outcome within the in-hospital period (90.9%), and focused on major morbidity. Considerable variation in morbidity definition was identified, with morbidity incidence between 4.3% and 52%. The majority (45.5%) defined morbidity and mortality separately but combined them to develop one model, while seven studies (33.3%) constructed a morbidity-specific model. Models contained between 5 and 50 variables. Commonly included variables were age, emergency surgery, left ventricular dysfunction, and reoperation/previous cardiac surgery, although definition differences across studies were observed. All models demonstrated at least reasonable discriminatory power [area under the receiver operating curve (0.61-0.82)]. CONCLUSION: Despite the methodological heterogeneity across models, all demonstrated at least reasonable discriminatory power and could be implemented depending on local preferences. Future strategies to identify, predict, and reduce morbidity after cardiac surgery should consider the ageing population and those with minor and/or multiple complex morbidities.
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 | 0.019 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".