MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 16570: Benchmarking Risk-Adjusted Outcomes in Congenital Heart Surgery

2023· article· en· W4389957145 on OpenAlexaff
Ram Kumar Subramanyan, Dylan Thibault, Sean M. O’Brien, J. William Gaynor, David M. Shahian, Emile Bacha, Vinay Badhwar, C.A. Caldarone, Joseph A. Dearani, Félix G. Fernández, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, David M. Overman, Sara K. Pasquali, Tabitha Rainey, Jennifer C. Romano, Subhadra Shashidharan, James S. Tweddell, John E. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortBenchmarkingSample size determinationCohort studyStatisticsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Robust models exist to predict risk-adjusted mortality following congenital heart surgery. It is known that underlying diagnosis modifies predicted risk of operations, and institution-level outcomes vary based on their unique case mix. We therefore evaluated risk-adjusted outcomes for a subset of diagnosis-procedure (D-P) combinations within the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' (STS) congenital heart surgery database (CHSD). Methods: A clinician panel identified the most frequently encountered D-P combinations in CHSD between 07/2017 and 06/2021. Candidate modeling techniques were compared in a random 80% development cohort. Model performance was assessed using internal and cross-validation calibration, discrimination plots and optimism adjusted C-statistics. The final selected model was evaluated in the 20% validation sample. Results: The chosen subset of D-P combinations represented 45,384 of 87,589 (52%) unique episodes of surgical care in CHSD during this time-period. The development cohort (36,350 episodes) had 1.8% mortality (667 deaths). All candidate models had excellent discrimination with C-statistics ranging from 0.862 to 0.876. The model with the best combination of discrimination, calibration, and clinical face validity was a modified version of the current STS mortality risk model. This version included all current risk model variables with the addition of indicator variables for D-P combinations. In the 20% validation sample (9,034 episodes), this model was well calibrated (Figure) and had excellent discrimination (C = 0.879). Conclusion: We describe a cohort of D-P combinations widely encountered in the STS CHSD. Further, we refined the existing STS CHSD risk model for application to these D-P dyads to derive empirical risk-adjusted benchmark outcomes. This approach will benefit quality improvement efforts at an institutional level and may have implications for publicly reporting congenital heart surgery outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→