ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Beyond EuroSCORE II: is artificial intelligence ready to redefine risk stratification in cardiothoracic surgery?
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk stratification is central to contemporary cardiothoracic surgical practice, guiding patient selection, perioperative planning, informed consent, and benchmarking of outcomes across institutions. Established models such as European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score remain widely used because they are validated, interpretable, and embedded within routine clinical workflows. However, their static structure and reliance on predefined variables may limit performance in increasingly complex and heterogeneous surgical populations. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have emerged as promising adjuncts capable of analyzing nonlinear relationships and high-dimensional data, with several studies reporting improved predictive discrimination in selected cohorts. Despite this potential, important barriers remain, including limited interpretability, risks of dataset bias, inconsistent external validation, and uncertainty regarding real-world implementation. Current evidence supports augmentation rather than replacement of traditional models. A practical pathway forward is the development of hybrid frameworks in which conventional scores provide baseline risk estimation while AI contributes individualized insights from dynamic clinical data. Successful translation will depend on prospective validation, seamless integration into electronic health record systems, clinician-friendly decision-support interfaces, and continued surgeon oversight. The future of cardiothoracic risk prediction is, therefore, likely to combine established clinical tools with responsible AI deployment to improve precision, workflow efficiency, and patient-centered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.