MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406633459 · doi:10.3390/jcm14020650

Prediction Model for POstoperative atriaL fibrillAtion in caRdIac Surgery: The POLARIS Score

2025· article· en· W4406633459 on OpenAlexaff
Fabrizio Rosati, Massimo Baudo, Cesare Tomasi, G Scotti, Sergio Pirola, Giorgio Mastroiacovo, Gianluca Polvani, Gianluigi Bisleri, Stefano Benussi, Lorenzo Di Bacco, Claudio Muneretto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicinePopulationCohortCardiac surgeryCardiologyIncidence (geometry)Logistic regressionBrier scoreReceiver operating characteristicOdds ratioSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery, occurring approximately in one-third of the patients. This study considered all-comer patients who underwent cardiac surgery to build a predictive model for POAF. Methods: A total of 3467 (Center 1) consecutive patients were used as a derivation cohort to build the model. The POLARIS score was then derived proportionally from the odds ratios obtained following multivariable logistic regression (MLR). The Brier Score, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to validate the model. Then, 2272 (Center 2) consecutive patients were used as an external validation cohort. Results: In the overall population (n = 5739), POAF occurred in 32.7% of patients. MLR performed in the derivation cohort showed that age, obesity, chronic renal failure, pulmonary hypertension, minimally invasive surgery, and aortic and mitral valve surgery were predictors of POAF. The derived POLARIS score was used to further stratify the population into four risk clusters: low (1.5–3), intermediate (3.5–5), high (5.5–7), and very high (7.5–9), each progressively showing an increase in POAF incidence. This was confirmed in a correlation analysis (Spearman’s rho: 0.636). Conclusions: The POLARIS score is a simple-to-use tool to stratify patients at higher risk of POAF. Precise identification of such patients might be used to implement clinical practice with the introduction of preoperative antiarrhythmic prophylaxis, further reducing the incidence of POAF and, potentially, its clinical sequelae, despite further investigations being warranted to test this model in prospective studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→