MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403841510 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024xgy74hfd

Development and Validation of Machine-Learning Model to Predict the Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events and Death for Patients with Kidney Failure Having Noncardiac Surgery

2024· article· en· W4403841510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gurpreet Pabla, Navdeep Tangri, Tyrone G. Harrison, Thomas W. Ferguson, Emir Sevinc, Reid Whitlock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySeven Oaks General HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with kidney failure undergoing non-cardiac surgery face significantly higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and mortality compared to those with normal kidney function. Existing risk prediction tools are limited in estimating these risks for kidney failure patients. We developed and validated a machine-learning model for major cardiovascular events and mortality in kidney failure patients within 30 days of undergoing outpatient or inpatient non-cardiac surgery in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada. Methods: Derivation data was sourced from Manitoba Health, including adults (≥ 18 years) with kidney failure (eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73m2 or on maintenance dialysis) undergoing non-cardiac surgery between April 1, 2007, and December 31, 2019. We focused on a composite outcome of acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, and all-cause mortality. Data was split into 70% for training, 15% for validation, and 15% for testing. The training set was used to tune the hyperparameters and train the models; the validation dataset was used for feature selection and evaluate model performance, while the testing set evaluated the model’s final performance. The model's performance was evaluated using C-statistics, Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUC-PR), calibration plots, and Brier Score. We used XGBoost and Random Forest, selecting a model with reasonable and balanced C-statistics and AUC-PR. The final model was externally tested using Alberta data. Results: We identified 12,082 surgeries and 569 outcomes. The final model (XGBoost) included surgery type, surgery setting (emergency inpatient, outpatient), history of myocardial infarction, albumin, and hemoglobin levels. It had an estimated C-statistic of 0.86, an AUC-PR of 0.30, and a Brier score of 0.04 in the testing cohort. External testing in Alberta showed similar performance. Calibration plots demonstrated excellent calibration, except for underestimation at the highest predicted risks. Conclusion: Our XGBoost model for adverse peri-operative outcomes in patients with kidney failure demonstrated good performance, with improved parsimony compared to existing tools. Future work should compare these tools and test the impact of risk-guided approaches to perioperative care. Funding: Government Support – Non-U.S.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207