Cited by 42Machine Learning in HealthcareCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Using machine learning techniques to develop forecasting algorithms for postoperative complications: protocol for a retrospective study

Open access
Fritz, Bradley A, Chen, Yixin, Murray-Torres, Teresa M, Gregory, Stephen, Ben Abdallah, Arbi, Kronzer, Alex, McKinnon, Sherry Lynn, Budelier, Thaddeus +4 more·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Mortality and morbidity following surgery are pressing public health concerns in the USA. Traditional prediction models for postoperative adverse outcomes demonstrate good discrimination at the population level, but the ability to forecast an individual patient’s trajectory in real time remains poor. We propose to apply machine learning techniques to perioperative time-series data to develop algorithms for predicting adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods and analysis: This study will include all adult patients who had surgery at our tertiary care hospital over a 4-year period. Patient history, laboratory values, minute-by-minute intraoperative vital signs and medications administered will be extracted from the electronic medical record. Outcomes will include in-hospital mortality, postoperative acute kidney injury and postoperative respiratory failure. Forecasting algorithms for each of these outcomes will be constructed using density-based logistic regression after employing a Nadaraya-Watson kernel density estimator. Time-series variables will be analysed using first and second-order feature extraction, shapelet methods and convolutional neural networks. The algorithms will be validated through measurement of precision and recall. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Human Research Protection Office at Washington University in St Louis. The successful development of these forecasting algorithms will allow perioperative healthcare clinicians to predict more accurately an individual patient’s risk for specific adverse perioperative outcomes in real time. Knowledge of a patient’s dynamic risk profile may allow clinicians to make targeted changes in the care plan that will alter the patient’s outcome trajectory. This hypothesis will be tested in a future randomised controlled trial.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020124

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]George A, Wild C Nonlinear Regression. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2003.
  2. [25]: Loforte R, Carrault G, Mainardi L, Beuche A, et al Heart rate and respiration relationships as a diagnostic tool for late onset sepsis in sick preterm infants: Computers in Cardiology: IEEE, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fritz, B. A., Chen, Y., Murray-Torres, T. M., Gregory, S., Ben Abdallah, A., Kronzer, A., McKinnon, S. L., Budelier, T., Helsten, D. L., Wildes, T. S., Sharma, A., & Avidan, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA
Corresponding author
Fritz, Bradley A
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-04
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e020124
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2797650827
Cited by
42
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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 complications, machine learning forecasting, in-hospital mortality, postoperative acute kidney injury, postoperative respiratory failure, electronic health records, time series analysis, convolutional neural networks
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Algorithms, Humans, Missouri, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies

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