Derivation and validation of predictive indices for cardiac readmission after coronary and valvular surgery – A multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To derive and validate models to predict the risk of a cardiac readmission within one year after specific cardiac surgeries using information that is commonly available from hospital electronic medical records. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we derived and externally validated clinical models to predict the likelihood of cardiac readmissions within one-year of isolated CABG, AVR, and combined CABG+AVR in Ontario, Canada, using multiple clinical registries and routinely collected administrative databases. For all adult patients who underwent these procedures, multiple Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were derived within a competing-risk framework using the cohort from April 2015 to March 2018 and validated in an independent cohort (April 2018 to March 2020). Results: For the model that predicted post-CABG cardiac readmission, the c-statistic was 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.70 in the validation cohort at one-year. For the model that predicted post-AVR cardiac readmission, the c-statistic was 0.74 in the derivation and 0.73 in the validation cohort at one-year. For the model that predicted cardiac readmission following CABG+AVR, the c-statistic was 0.70 in the derivation and 0.66 in the validation cohort at one-year. Conclusions: Prediction of one-year cardiac readmission for isolated CABG, AVR, and combined CABG+AVR can be achieved parsimoniously using multidimensional data sources. Model discrimination was better than existing models derived from single and multicenter registries.
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 | 0.039 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".