The combination of Euroscore II with a new variable "Nongraftable coronary artery lesions" improves the discriminating power of the test in surgical patients with postinfarction ventricular septal defect and ventricular aneurysm

Beliaev, Andrei M.; Skopin, I.I.; Лобачева, Г В; Alshibaya, Mikhail

doi:10.1111/jocs.17181

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sharp dataset drifts were observed for the Single non-CABG and 3 procedures category between 2018–12 and 2019–02. However, studies so far have either considered EuroSCORE I and EuroSCORE II in isolation, 38 – 41 with addition of new variables 42 or have compared their performances side by side, 43 – 45 but have not considered the combination of the two scores. DMA has been suggested to be beneficial for model performance if applied to dynamically update more than one model in parallel.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cardiac surgery risk prediction using ensemble machine learning to incorporate legacy risk scores: A benchmarking study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The introduction of new clinical risk scores (e.g. European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II) superseding original scores (e.g. EuroSCORE I) with different variable sets typically result in disparate datasets due to high levels of missingness for new score variables prior to time of adoption. Little is known about the use of ensemble learning to incorporate disparate data from legacy scores. We tested the hypothesised that Homogenenous and Heterogeneous Machine Learning (ML) ensembles will have better performance than ensembles of Dynamic Model Averaging (DMA) for combining knowledge from EuroSCORE I legacy data with EuroSCORE II data to predict cardiac surgery risk. Methods Using the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit dataset, we trained 12 different base learner models, based on two different variable sets from either EuroSCORE I (LogES) or EuroScore II (ES II), partitioned by the time of score adoption (1996–2016 or 2012–2016) and evaluated on holdout set (2017–2019). These base learner models were ensembled using nine different combinations of six ML algorithms to produce homogeneous or heterogeneous ensembles. Performance was assessed using a consensus metric. Results Xgboost homogenous ensemble (HE) was the highest performing model (clinical effectiveness metric (CEM) 0.725) with area under the curve (AUC) (0.8327; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8323–0.8329) followed by Random Forest HE (CEM 0.723; AUC 0.8325; 95%CI 0.8320–0.8326). Across different heterogenous ensembles, significantly better performance was obtained by combining siloed datasets across time (CEM 0.720) than building ensembles of either 1996–2011 ( t-test adjusted, p = 1.67×10−6) or 2012–2019 ( t-test adjusted, p = 1.35×10−193) datasets alone. Conclusions Both homogenous and heterogenous ML ensembles performed significantly better than DMA ensemble of Bayesian Update models. Time-dependent ensemble combination of variables, having differing qualities according to time of score adoption, enabled previously siloed data to be combined, leading to increased power, clinical interpretability of variables and usage of data.

show abstract