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 has shown to be efficient in 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 mortality risk 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 selection of 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 based on fuzzy predictors, validation set risk using calibrated FCM, and comparison with the other scores according to the level of agreement 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 score and risk predicted by Parsonnet, Ontario and EuroSCORE. The ROC areas showed that FCM had at least the same performance as other scores to predict mortality (ROC=0.793 vs. 0.775, 0.767, 0.741 and 0.701 for EuroSCORE, “expert”, Ontario and Parsonnet, respectively). Conclusions: A fuzzy logic-based system employing expert knowledge and the implementation of an expert system is postulated to predict cardiac surgery mortality risk. The model not only mimicked the outcomes obtained by the “expert”, but had the same 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".