We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Development and validation of a machine learning prediction model for perioperative red blood cell transfusions in cardiac surgery.
International Journal of Medical Informatics 2024 April
OBJECTIVE: Several machine learning (ML) models have been used in perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion risk for cardiac surgery with limited generalizability and no external validation. Hence, we sought to develop and comprehensively externally validate a ML model in a large dataset to estimate RBC transfusion in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter clinical trial (NCT03782350).
PATIENTS: The study patients who underwent cardiac surgery with CPB came from four cardiac centers in China and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Cared (MIMIC-IV) dataset.
MEASUREMENTS: Data from Fuwai Hospital were used to develop an individualized prediction model for RBC transfusion. The model was externally validated in the data from three other centers and MIMIC-IV dataset. Twelve models were constructed.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 11,201 eligible patients were included in the model development (2420 in Fuwai Hospital) and external validation (563 in the other three centers and 8218 in the MIMIC-IV dataset). A significant difference was observed between the Logistic Regression and CatboostClassifier (0.72 Vs. 0.74, P = 0.031) or RandomForestClassifier (0.72 Vs. 0.75 p = 0.012) in the external validation and MIMIV-IV datasets (age ≤ 70:0.63 Vs. 0.71, p < 0.001; age > 70:0.63 Vs. 0.70, 0.63 Vs. 0.71, p < 0.001). The CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier model was comparable in development (0.83 Vs. 0.82, p = 0.419), external (0.74 Vs. 0.75, p = 0.268), and MIMIC-IV datasets (age ≤ 70: 0.71 Vs. 0.71, p = 0.574; age > 70: 0.70 Vs. 0.71, p = 0.981). Of note, they outperformed other ML models with excellent discrimination and calibration. The CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier models achieved higher area under precision-recall curve and lower brier loss score in validation and MIMIC-IV datasets. Additionally, we confirmed that low preoperative hemoglobin, low body mass index, old age, and female sex increased the risk of RBC transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, enrolling a broad range of cardiovascular surgeries with CPB and utilizing a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, robustly validates the generalizability of ML algorithms for predicting RBC transfusion risk. Notably, the CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier exhibit strong external clinical applicability, underscoring their potential for widespread adoption. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the efficacy and practical value of ML-based approaches in enhancing transfusion risk prediction in clinical practice.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a multicenter clinical trial (NCT03782350).
PATIENTS: The study patients who underwent cardiac surgery with CPB came from four cardiac centers in China and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Cared (MIMIC-IV) dataset.
MEASUREMENTS: Data from Fuwai Hospital were used to develop an individualized prediction model for RBC transfusion. The model was externally validated in the data from three other centers and MIMIC-IV dataset. Twelve models were constructed.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 11,201 eligible patients were included in the model development (2420 in Fuwai Hospital) and external validation (563 in the other three centers and 8218 in the MIMIC-IV dataset). A significant difference was observed between the Logistic Regression and CatboostClassifier (0.72 Vs. 0.74, P = 0.031) or RandomForestClassifier (0.72 Vs. 0.75 p = 0.012) in the external validation and MIMIV-IV datasets (age ≤ 70:0.63 Vs. 0.71, p < 0.001; age > 70:0.63 Vs. 0.70, 0.63 Vs. 0.71, p < 0.001). The CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier model was comparable in development (0.83 Vs. 0.82, p = 0.419), external (0.74 Vs. 0.75, p = 0.268), and MIMIC-IV datasets (age ≤ 70: 0.71 Vs. 0.71, p = 0.574; age > 70: 0.70 Vs. 0.71, p = 0.981). Of note, they outperformed other ML models with excellent discrimination and calibration. The CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier models achieved higher area under precision-recall curve and lower brier loss score in validation and MIMIC-IV datasets. Additionally, we confirmed that low preoperative hemoglobin, low body mass index, old age, and female sex increased the risk of RBC transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, enrolling a broad range of cardiovascular surgeries with CPB and utilizing a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, robustly validates the generalizability of ML algorithms for predicting RBC transfusion risk. Notably, the CatboostClassifier and RandomForestClassifier exhibit strong external clinical applicability, underscoring their potential for widespread adoption. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the efficacy and practical value of ML-based approaches in enhancing transfusion risk prediction in clinical practice.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app