Predicting Postoperative Mortality With Deep Neural Networks and Natural Language Processing: Model Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) achieves better predictions of postoperative mortality than previous prediction tools. Free-text descriptions of the preoperative diagnosis and the planned procedure are available preoperatively. Because reading these descriptions helps anesthesiologists evaluate the risk of the surgery, we hypothesized that deep learning (DL) models with unstructured text could improve postoperative mortality prediction. However, it is challenging to extract meaningful concept embeddings from this unstructured clinical text. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a fusion DL model containing structured and unstructured features to predict the in-hospital 30-day postoperative mortality before surgery. ML models for predicting postoperative mortality using preoperative data with or without free clinical text were assessed. METHODS: We retrospectively collected preoperative anesthesia assessments, surgical information, and discharge summaries of patients undergoing general and neuraxial anesthesia from electronic health records (EHRs) from 2016 to 2020. We first compared the deep neural network (DNN) with other models using the same input features to demonstrate effectiveness. Then, we combined the DNN model with bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) to extract information from clinical texts. The effects of adding text information on the model performance were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Statistical significance was evaluated using P<.05. RESULTS: The final cohort contained 121,313 patients who underwent surgeries. A total of 1562 (1.29%) patients died within 30 days of surgery. Our BERT-DNN model achieved the highest AUROC (0.964, 95% CI 0.961-0.967) and AUPRC (0.336, 95% CI 0.276-0.402). The AUROC of the BERT-DNN was significantly higher compared to logistic regression (AUROC=0.952, 95% CI 0.949-0.955) and the American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status (ASAPS AUROC=0.892, 95% CI 0.887-0.896) but not significantly higher compared to the DNN (AUROC=0.959, 95% CI 0.956-0.962) and the random forest (AUROC=0.961, 95% CI 0.958-0.964). The AUPRC of the BERT-DNN was significantly higher compared to the DNN (AUPRC=0.319, 95% CI 0.260-0.384), the random forest (AUPRC=0.296, 95% CI 0.239-0.360), logistic regression (AUPRC=0.276, 95% CI 0.220-0.339), and the ASAPS (AUPRC=0.149, 95% CI 0.107-0.203). CONCLUSIONS: Our BERT-DNN model has an AUPRC significantly higher compared to previously proposed models using no text and an AUROC significantly higher compared to logistic regression and the ASAPS. This technique helps identify patients with higher risk from the surgical description text in EHRs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".