MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4398251160 · doi:10.1101/2024.05.22.24307754

Effect of Machine Learning on Anaesthesiology Clinician Prediction of Postoperative Complications: The Perioperative ORACLE Randomised Clinical Trial

2024· preprint· en· W4398251160 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley A. Fritz, Christopher R. King, Mohamed Abdelhack, Yixin Chen, Alexander Kronzer, Joanna Abraham, Sandhya Tripathi, Arbi Ben Abdallah, Thomas Kannampallil, Thaddeus P. Budelier, Daniel L. Helsten, Arianna Montes de, Divya Mehta, Pratyush Sontha, Omokhaye Higo, Paul Kerby, Stephen H. Gregory, Troy S. Wildes, Michael S. Avidan

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeReceiver operating characteristicIncidence (geometry)Acute kidney injuryAnesthesiologyRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineInternal medicineSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anaesthesiology clinicians can implement risk mitigation strategies if they know which patients are at greatest risk for postoperative complications. Although machine learning models predicting complications exist, their impact on clinician risk assessment is unknown. Methods: This single-centre randomised clinical trial enrolled patients age ≥18 undergoing surgery with anaesthesiology services. Anaesthesiology clinicians providing remote intraoperative telemedicine support reviewed electronic health records with (assisted group) or without (unassisted group) also reviewing machine learning predictions. Clinicians predicted the likelihood of postoperative 30-day all-cause mortality and postoperative acute kidney injury within 7 days. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the clinician predictions was determined. Results: Among 5,071 patient cases reviewed by 89 clinicians, the observed incidence was 2% for postoperative death and 11% for acute kidney injury. Clinician predictions agreed with the models more strongly in the assisted versus unassisted group (weighted kappa 0.75 versus 0.62 for death [difference 0.13, 95%CI 0.10-0.17] and 0.79 versus 0.54 for kidney injury [difference 0.25, 95%CI 0.21-0.29]). Clinicians predicted death with AUROC of 0.793 in the assisted group and 0.780 in the unassisted group (difference 0.013, 95%CI -0.070 to 0.097). Clinicians predicted kidney injury with AUROC of 0.734 in the assisted group and 0.688 in the unassisted group (difference 0.046, 95%CI -0.003 to 0.091). Conclusions: Although there was evidence that the models influenced clinician predictions, clinician performance was not statistically significantly different with and without machine learning assistance. Further work is needed to clarify the role of machine learning in real-time perioperative risk stratification. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05042804.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→