Prediction of major postoperative events after non-cardiac surgery for people with kidney failure: derivation and internal validation of risk models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with kidney failure often require surgery and experience worse postoperative outcomes compared to the general population, but existing risk prediction tools have excluded those with kidney failure during development or exhibit poor performance. Our objective was to derive, internally validate, and estimate the clinical utility of risk prediction models for people with kidney failure undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES: or receipt of maintenance dialysis) undergoing non-cardiac surgery between 2005-2019. Three nested prognostic risk prediction models were assembled using clinical and logistical rationale. Model 1 included age, sex, dialysis modality, surgery type and setting. Model 2 added comorbidities, and Model 3 added preoperative hemoglobin and albumin. Death or major cardiac events (acute myocardial infarction or nonfatal ventricular arrhythmia) within 30 days after surgery were modelled using logistic regression models. RESULTS: The development cohort included 38,541 surgeries, with 1,204 outcomes (after 3.1% of surgeries); 61% were performed in males, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 53, 73), and 61% were receiving hemodialysis at the time of surgery. All three internally validated models performed well, with c-statistics ranging from 0.783 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.770, 0.797) for Model 1 to 0.818 (95%CI: 0.803, 0.826) for Model 3. Calibration slopes and intercepts were excellent for all models, though Models 2 and 3 demonstrated improvement in net reclassification. Decision curve analysis estimated that use of any model to guide perioperative interventions such as cardiac monitoring would result in potential net benefit over default strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and internally validated three novel models to predict major clinical events for people with kidney failure having surgery. Models including comorbidities and laboratory variables showed improved accuracy of risk stratification and provided the greatest potential net benefit for guiding perioperative decisions. Once externally validated, these models may inform perioperative shared decision making and risk-guided strategies for this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".