Cited by 127Machine Learning in HealthcareCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Deep-learning model for predicting 30-day postoperative mortality

Open access
Fritz, Bradley A., Cui, Zhicheng, Zhang, Muhan, He, Yujie, Chen, Yixin, Kronzer, Alex, Ben Abdallah, Arbi, King, Christopher R. +1 more·2019·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background Postoperative mortality occurs in 1-2% of patients undergoing major inpatient surgery. The currently available prediction tools using summaries of intraoperative data are limited by their inability to reflect shifting risk associated with intraoperative physiological perturbations. We sought to compare similar benchmarks to a deep-learning algorithm predicting postoperative 30-day mortality. Methods We constructed a multipath convolutional neural network model using patient characteristics, co-morbid conditions, preoperative laboratory values, and intraoperative numerical data from patients undergoing surgery with tracheal intubation at a single medical centre. Data for 60 min prior to a randomly selected time point were utilised. Model performance was compared with a deep neural network, a random forest, a support vector machine, and a logistic regression using predetermined summary statistics of intraoperative data. Results Of 95 907 patients, 941 (1%) died within 30 days. The multipath convolutional neural network predicted postoperative 30-day mortality with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.867 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.835-0.899). This was higher than that for the deep neural network (0.825; 95% CI: 0.790-0.860), random forest (0.848; 95% CI: 0.815-0.882), support vector machine (0.836; 95% CI: 0.802-870), and logistic regression (0.837; 95% CI: 0.803-0.871). Conclusions A deep-learning time-series model improves prediction compared with models with simple summaries of intraoperative data. We have created a model that can be used in real time to detect dynamic changes in a patient's risk for postoperative mortality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2019.07.025

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI using EHR data has become much more general and accurate in the last few years, allowing prediction of perioperative events and learning effective treatment strategies.

    “AI using EHR data has become much more general and accurate in the last few years,35,36 allowing prediction of perioperative events37–41 and learning effective treatment strategies.42”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 127

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. International Surgical Outcomes Study Group. Global pa- tient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle-and high-income countries. Br J Anaesth 2016; 117: 601e9
  2. GlobalSurg Collaborative. Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Br J Surg 2016; 103: 971e88
  3. Moonesinghe SR, Mythen MG, Das P, Rowan KM, Grocott MPW. Risk stratification tools for predicting morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing major surgery: qualitative systematic review. Anesthesi- ology 2013; 119: 959e81
  4. Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217: 833e42
  5. Dawson NV, Arkes HR. Systematic errors in medical de- cision making: judgement limitations. J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2: 183e7
  6. Stiegler MP, Neelankavil JP, Canales C, Dhillon A. Cogni- tive errors detected in anaesthesiology: a literature review and pilot study. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108: 229e35
  7. Stiegler MP, Tung A. Cognitive processes in anesthesi- ology decision making. Anesthesiology 2014; 120: 204e17
  8. Patel VL, Kaufman DR, Arocha JF. Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making. J Biomed Inform 2002; 35: 52e75
  9. Ting DSW, Cheung CYL, Lim G, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning system for diabetic retinop- athy and related eye disease using retinal images from multiethnic populations with diabetes. JAMA 2017; 318: 2211e23
  10. Lee CK, Hofer I, Gabel E, Baldi P, Cannesson M. Develop- ment and validation of a deep neural network model for prediction of postoperative in-hospital mortality. Anes- thesiology 2018; 129: 649e62
  11. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature 2015; 521: 436e44
  12. Luo W, Phung D, Tran T, et al. Guidelines for developing and reporting machine learning predictive models in biomedical research: a multidisciplinary review. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18: e323
  13. Paszke A, Gross S, Chintala S, et al. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. Paper presented at Neural Information Processing Systems 2017 Autodiff Workshop 9 December 2017. Long Beach, CA. Available from: https://openreview.net/forum? id¼BJJsrmfCZ. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  14. Cui Z, Chen W, Chen Y. Multi-scale convolutional neural networks for time series classification. Published online at arXiv 11 May 2016. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603. 06995. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  15. Ioffe S, Szegedy C. Batch normalization: accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. Paper presented at International Conference on Machine Learning 6e11 July 2015. Lille, France. Available from, https://arxiv. org/abs/1502.03167. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  16. Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, et al. Going deeper with convolutions. Paper presented at IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 7e12 June 2015. Boston, MA. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7298594/. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  17. Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res 2014; 15: 1929e58
  18. Simonyan K, Vedaldi A, Zisserman A. Deep inside convolu- tional networks: visualising image classification models and saliency maps. Published online at arXiv 19 April 2014. Available from: https://www.arxiv.org/abs/1312.6034. [Accessed 13 June 2019] · arXiv
  19. Boyd K, Santos Costa V, Davis J, Page CD. Unachievable re- gion in precision-recall space and its effect on empirical evalu- ation. Paper presented at International Conference on Machine Learning 26 Junee1 July 2012. Edinburgh, Scotland. Avail- able from, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC3858955/. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  20. Davis J, Goadrich M. The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. Paper presented at International Conference on Machine Learning 25e29 June 2006. Pittsburgh, PA. Avail- able from: https://www.biostat.wisc.edu/~page/rocpr.pdf. [Accessed 3 September 2018]
  21. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32e5
  22. Murray-Torres TM, Wallace F, Bollini M, Avidan MS, Politi MC. Anesthesiology Control tower: feasibility assessment to support translation (ACT-FAST): a feasi- bility study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2018; 4: 38
  23. Gregory S, Murray-Torres TM, Fritz BA, et al. Study pro- tocol for the anesthesiology Control tower-feedback alerts to supplement treatments (ACTFAST-3) trial: a pilot. F1000Res 2018; 7: 623 Handling editor: P.S. Myles Deep-learning model for postoperative mortality -695

Authors
Fritz, B. A., Cui, Z., Zhang, M., He, Y., Chen, Y., Kronzer, A., Ben Abdallah, A., King, C. R., & Avidan, M. S.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Fritz, Bradley A.
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
688-695
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2976003057
Cited by
127
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
postoperative mortality, 30-day mortality prediction, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, endotracheal intubation, time series forecasting, risk prediction, real-time risk detection
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Missouri, Postoperative Complications, Postoperative Period, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Comorbidity, Neural Networks, Computer, Risk Assessment, Support Vector Machine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review